Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D37D9F9724 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:19:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39762-05 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:19:23 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from mail.planetcobalt.net (mail.planetcobalt.net [217.10.9.49]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2970B9F9633 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:19:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: by mail.planetcobalt.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E0D493C00084; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 01:19:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 01:19:21 +0200 From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM Message-ID: <20070905231921.GA28600@mail.planetcobalt.net> References: <20070904230639.GA23731@alvh.no-ip.org> <46DE66CF.9000903@theendofthetunnel.de> <90bce5730709051016j5291827dx525d6b8fe4960fbd@mail.gmail.com> <20070905210212.GA26941@mail.planetcobalt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/67 X-Sequence-Number: 26612 On 2007-09-05 Scott Marlowe wrote: > On 9/5/07, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote: >> On 2007-09-05 Scott Marlowe wrote: >>> And there's the issue that with windows / NTFS that when one process >>> opens a file for read, it locks it for all other users. This means >>> that things like virus scanners can cause odd, unpredictable >>> failures of your database. >> >> Uh... what? Locking isn't done by the filesystem but by applications >> (which certainly can decide to not lock a file when opening it). And >> no one in his right mind would ever have a virus scanner access the >> files of a running database, regardless of operating system or >> filesystem. > > Exactly, the default is to lock the file. The application has to > explicitly NOT lock it. It's the opposite of linux. Yes. So? It's still up to the application, and it still has nothing at all to do with the filesystem. > And be careful, you're insulting a LOT of people who have come on this > list with the exact problem of having their anti-virus scramble the > brain of their postgresql installation. It's a far more common > problem than it should be. How does that make it any less stup^Wintellectually challenged? Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- "The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when it does, it seriously inconveniences the user." --http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2004/tn2118.html