On 5/1/2012 8:06 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Walker, James Les<JAWalker@cantor.com> wrote:
>> Exactly, if turning off fsync gives me 100 commits/sec then I know where my bottleneck is and I can attack it. Keep
inmind though that I already turned off synchronous commit -- *really* dangerous -- and it didn't have any effect.
>
> well synchronous commit is not as dangerous:
> fsync off + power failure = corrupt database
> synchronous commit off + power failure = some lost transactions
>
> still waiting on the ssd model #. worst case scenario is that you tps
> rate is in fact sync bound and you have a ssd without capacitor backed
> buffers (for example, the intel 320 has them); the probable workaround
> would be to set the drive cache from write through to write back but
> it would unsafe in that case. in other words, tps rates in the triple
> digits would be physically impossible.
>
> another less likely scenario is you are having network issues
> (assuming you are connecting to the database through tcp/ip). 20
> years in, microsoft is still figuring out how to properly configure a
> network socket.
>
> merlin
>
Even if its all local, windows doesnt have domain sockets (correct?), so
all that traffic still has to go thru some bit of network stack, yes?
-Andy