| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
| Date: | 2005-02-25 05:07:01 |
| Message-ID: | 878y5dqlca.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> > I'm a bit surprised that the write-cache lead to a corrupt database, and
> > not merely lost transactions. I had the impression that drives still
> > handled the writes in the order received.
>
> In this case, it was lost transactions, not data corruption.
> ...
> A couple of the latest transactions were gone, but the database came up
> in a consistent state, if a bit old.
That's interesting. It would be very interesting to know how reliably this is
true. It could potentially vary depending on the drive firmware.
I can't see any painless way to package up this kind of test for people to run
though. Powercycling machines repeatedly really isn't fun and takes a long
time. And testing this on vmware doesn't buy us anything.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-25 05:18:37 | Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-25 04:59:36 | Re: Can we remove SnapshotSelf? |