From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: jd@commandprompt.com, "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>
Cc: Ben Chobot <bench@silentmedia.com>
Subject: Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:18:09 +0200
Message-ID: <201010212218.09609.andres@anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CC0513E0200002500036C68@gw.wicourts.gov>
References: <4CC04EA50200002500036C5E@gw.wicourts.gov>
<201010211935.o9LJZTM21744@momjian.us>
<4CC0513E0200002500036C68@gw.wicourts.gov>
On Thursday 21 October 2010 21:42:06 Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > I assume we send a full 8k to the controller, and a failure during
> > that write is not registered as a write.
>
> On what do you base that assumption? I assume that we send a full
> 8K to the OS cache, and the file system writes disk sectors
> according to its own algorithm. With either platters or BBU cache,
> the data is persisted on fsync; why do you see a risk with one but
> not the other?
At least on linux pages can certainly get written out in < 8kb batches if
youre under memory pressure.
Andres
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: andres@anarazel.de, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, bruce@momjian.us, greg@2ndquadrant.com, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, scrawford@pinpointresearch.com, bench@silentmedia.com
Subject: Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles
In-Reply-To: <201010212218.09609.andres@anarazel.de>
* 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