From: Balkrishna Sharma <b_ki@hotmail.com>
To: scott.marlowe@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server crash
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 16:10:19 -0400
Message-ID: <BAY149-w47C0EFBE3720C0DA258E4AF0E30@phx.gbl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimxy4_ecy3MnHYTNeWcVOrIQdJIm1_nutxHEBd4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BAY149-w7E2586A2E044680536BD8F0E30@phx.gbl>
<AANLkTimxy4_ecy3MnHYTNeWcVOrIQdJIm1_nutxHEBd4@mail.gmail.com>
What if we don't rely on the cache of SSD, i.e. have write-through setting and not write-back. Is the performance gain then not significant to justify SSD ?
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:35:54 -0600
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server crash
> From: scott.marlowe@gmail.com
> To: b_ki@hotmail.com
> CC: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
>
> SSD and battery backed cache kind of do the same thing, in that they
> reduce random access times close to 0. However, most SSDs are still
> not considered reliable due to their internal caching systems. hard
> drives and bbu RAID are proven solutions, SSD is still not really
> there just yet in terms of being proven reliable.
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Balkrishna Sharma <b_ki@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Good suggestion. Thanks.
> > What's your take on SSD ? I read somewhere that moving the WAL to SSD helps
> > as well.
> >
> >> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:36:31 -0600
> >> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server
> >> crash
> >> From: scott.marlowe@gmail.com
> >> To: b_ki@hotmail.com
> >> CC: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Balkrishna Sharma <b_ki@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I need to support several hundreds of concurrent update/inserts from an
> >> > online form with pretty low latency (maybe couple of milliseconds at
> >> > max).
> >> > Think of a save to database at every 'tab-out' in an online form.
> >>
> >> You can get nearly the same performance by using a RAID controller
> >> with battery backed cache without the same danger of losing
> >> transactions.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
> >> To make changes to your subscription:
> >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
> >
> > ________________________________
> > The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with
> > Hotmail. Get busy.
>
>
>
> --
> When fascism comes to America, it will be intolerance sold as diversity.
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3=
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: b_ki@hotmail.com, scott.marlowe@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server crash
In-Reply-To: <BAY149-w47C0EFBE3720C0DA258E4AF0E30@phx.gbl>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox