Re: -F option, RAM usage, more...
От | Cristóvão Dalla Costa |
---|---|
Тема | Re: -F option, RAM usage, more... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 006901c02e4a$8c5ff390$02ffa8c0@terrificus обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | -F option, RAM usage, more... ("Mike Biamonte" <mike@dbeat.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
When I used postgres on linux, I found the following happened when the system failed in the middle of transactions: * ext2 + fsync: file system screwed-up, db OK * ext2 - fsync: much faster than above, file system screwed-up, db needed to be restored sometimes * reiserfs + fsync: as fast as ext2 without fsync, file system OK, db OK * reiserfs - fsync: no noticeable difference in speed from above, file system OK, db had to be restored *every time* Now I use freebsd...Can't comment on the various configurations yet, but to the folks concerned with memory issues, take note of this: freebsd manages virtual memory and disk caches much better than linux. It will even kick idle processes out of memory to make room for disk cache, something I never saw when working with linux. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mitch Vincent" <mitch@venux.net> To: <pgsql-general@hub.org>; "Neil Conway" <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] -F option, RAM usage, more... > Hmm, it seems we all know just enough to be dangerous :-) > > I have seen many threads on the "to fsync() or not to fsync()" and > overwhelmingly people have come out and said that to not fsync() is A Bad > Thing(TM). -- If Neil is right then it being bad or not is going to depend > very much on the filesystem (I think)... > > Now I'm pretty confused (as I'm sure others are) -- can someone that knows > beyond a reasonable doubt beat us with a clue stick on this? Are we taking > a huge risk if we use -F and disable fsync() or no? > > -Mitch >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: