X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F819DC9B9 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:08:21 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10821-08 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:08:24 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B8E9DC825 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:08:19 -0400 (AST) Received: from office1.i-free.ru (office1.i-free.ru [81.222.216.82]) by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E98F5AF0AE for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:08:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.0.250] (helo=deepcore.i-free.ru) by office1.i-free.ru with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1FDhAo-0004II-00 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:08:18 +0300 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:08:19 +0300 From: Evgeny Gridasov To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: wal sync method Message-Id: <20060227150819.48e48a85.eugrid@fpm.kubsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <5709.1128146518@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <1128015863.11474.9.camel@noodles> <5709.1128146518@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.0 (GTK+ 2.6.2; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100] X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/411 X-Sequence-Number: 17397 Hi everybody! Which wal sync method is the fastest under linux 2.6.x? I'm using RAID-10 (JFS filesystem), 2xXEON, 4 Gb RAM. I've tried to switch to open_sync which seems to work faster than default fdatasync, but is it crash-safe? -- Evgeny Gridasov Software Engineer I-Free, Russia