| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian Weimer" <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM |
| Date: | 2007-09-07 16:16:38 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10709070916n6a0a0a1cra17a244648b67be7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 9/7/07, Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de> wrote:
> * Scott Marlowe:
>
> > And there's the issue that with windows / NTFS that when one process
> > opens a file for read, it locks it for all other users. This means
> > that things like virus scanners can cause odd, unpredictable failures
> > of your database.
>
> I think most of them open the file in shared/backup mode. The only
> lock that is created by that guards deletion and renaming. It can
> still lead to obscure failures, but it's not a wholly-eclusive lock.
Well, there've been a lot of issues with anti-virus and postgresql not
getting along. I wonder if pgsql takes out a stronger lock, and when
it can't get it then the failure happens. Not familiar enough with
windows to do more than speculate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Schumacher | 2007-09-07 17:21:10 | Re: SAN vs Internal Disks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-07 14:56:47 | Re: postgres memory management issues? |