Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?