Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41D69F9CC8 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 03:47:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64534-05 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 03:47:48 -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 739009F9BCE for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 03:47:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: by mail.planetcobalt.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 73DDC3C00084; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 08:47:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 08:47:46 +0200 From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM Message-ID: <20070906064746.GA29940@mail.planetcobalt.net> References: <46DE66CF.9000903@theendofthetunnel.de> <90bce5730709051016j5291827dx525d6b8fe4960fbd@mail.gmail.com> <20070905210212.GA26941@mail.planetcobalt.net> <20070905231921.GA28600@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: 200709/71 X-Sequence-Number: 26616 On 2007-09-05 Scott Marlowe wrote: > On 9/5/07, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote: >> 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 if you look at my original reply, you'll see that I said WINDOWS / > NTFS. not just NTFS. i.e. it's a windowsism. I am aware of what you wrote. However, since the locking behaviour is exactly the same with Windows/FAT32 or Windows/%ANY_OTHER_FILESYSTEM% your statement is still wrong. 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