>> * Linux, with fsync (default), write-cache enabled: usually no data
>> corruption, but two runs which had
>
>Are you verifying that all the data that was committed was
>actually stored? Or
>just verifying that the database works properly after rebooting?
I verified the data.
>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. Should be
more careful. I had copy/pasted the "no data corruption", should specify
what was lost.
A couple of the latest transactions were gone, but the database came up
in a consistent state, if a bit old.
Since Linux wasn't the stuff I actually was testing, I didn't run very
many tests on it though.
//Magnus