From: Marc Cousin <cousinmarc@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: performance regression with Linux 2.6.33 and glibc 2.12
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:29:04 +0200
Message-ID: <201006041729.04321.cousinmarc@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2135.1275659945@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <201006041539.03868.cousinmarc@gmail.com>
<2135.1275659945@sss.pgh.pa.us>
The Friday 04 June 2010 15:59:05, Tom Lane wrote :
> Marc Cousin <cousinmarc@gmail.com> writes:
> > I hope I'm not going to expose an already known problem, but I couldn't
> > find it mailing list archives (I only found
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql- hackers/2009-12/msg01543.php).
>
> You sure this isn't the well-known "ext4 actually implements fsync
> where ext3 didn't" issue?
>
> regards, tom lane
Everything is ext4. So I should have fsync working with write barriers on all
the tests.
I don't think this problem is of the same kind: I think it is really because
of O_DSYNC appearing on 2.6.33, and PostgreSQL using it by default now. If my
filesystem was lying to me about barriers, I should take no more performance
hit with open_datasync than with fdatasync, should I ?
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: cousinmarc@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: performance regression with Linux 2.6.33 and glibc 2.12
In-Reply-To: <201006041729.04321.cousinmarc@gmail.com>
* 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