Re: win32 performance - fsync question

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Oliver Jowett
Тема Re: win32 performance - fsync question
Дата
Msg-id 4214FD66.2040307@opencloud.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: win32 performance - fsync question  (Evgeny Rodichev <er@sai.msu.su>)
Ответы Re: win32 performance - fsync question  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
Re: win32 performance - fsync question  (Evgeny Rodichev <er@sai.msu.su>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Evgeny Rodichev wrote:

> Write cache is enabled under Linux by default all the time I make deal
> with it (since 1993).
> 
> It doesn't interfere with fsync(), as linux kernel uses cache flush for
> fsync.

The problem is that most IDE drives lie (or perhaps you could say the 
specification is ambiguous) about completion of the cache-flush command 
-- they say "Yeah, I've flushed" when they have not actually written the 
data to the media and have no provision for making sure it will get 
there in the event of power failure.

So Linux is indeed doing a cache flush on fsync, but the hardware is not 
behaving as expected. By turning off the write-cache on the disk via 
hdparm, you manage to get the hardware to behave better. The kernel is 
caching anyway, so the loss of the drive's write cache doesn't make a 
big difference.

There was some work done for better IDE write-barrier support (related 
to TCQ/SATA support?) in the kernel, but I'm not sure how far that has 
progressed.

-O


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: win32 performance - fsync question
Следующее
От: "Merlin Moncure"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: win32 performance - fsync question