Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD59B5DBCA
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:44:12 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 39329-02
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:44:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de
	[212.227.126.186])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DBFB5D803
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:44:06 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com
	[71.179.240.8])
	by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu4) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
	id 0MJIbO-1QkGtz04So-002klT; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:44:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4E2381D3.9020201@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:44:03 -0400
From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database
References: <4E16479D.3050605@yahoo.com>	<4E1A0CBC.6090009@yahoo.com>
	<4E1A31AB.9010201@postnewspapers.com.au>
	<1310359653.80687.YahooMailRC@web121705.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<4E1AEDAB020000250003F1C3@gw.wicourts.gov>	<4E1B41EA.90104@yahoo.com>
	<4E1B05CC020000250003F1E6@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<CAHyXU0wPhZsQ_pMzfUWW0O=t_+2uwF-CJQNw-nuaxkjbi2zPEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E1B810D.4070404@yahoo.com>	<4E1B90AF.1020408@yahoo.com>
	<ivho9v$6dp$1@dough.gmane.org>	<4E1C9A05.7060005@yahoo.com>
	<4E1C5563020000250003F252@gw.wicourts.gov>	<4E1CA8E9.6090108@yahoo.com>
	<4E1CB56E.7080801@yahoo.com>	<4E1D697C020000250003F29A@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<4E1DE28D.6020207@yahoo.com>	<4E1DA0C2020000250003F2B1@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<4E1E1F0C.70005@yahoo.com>
	<CAMkU=1z2oriZAv4D2hb55+PX=Q5j8dfxpaZpHhGuYic168B18A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E20D988.3040007@yahoo.com>
	<CAMkU=1xFsFC+SR0LbqoJhkK=_KHynWo58YGMZSBdBtuQDzXxCQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMkU=1xFsFC+SR0LbqoJhkK=_KHynWo58YGMZSBdBtuQDzXxCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:uv/lvt1OV2uoimiVygPdCZUVQhOLqInKVjkRVGzaQvq
	xk9dmLO4FaG2IcIfmwXUO0k1aQhRobbplESyGcxB4zQTPzXX/r
	bBWyjI2L2sIsSgwR4VszJRaNTKetBRhm/OsFOZ6Kx3/V41gW3y
	2wGbHUXVnLbpwxn2nkQuHm9w9JdkfOZ+2TUNrtOlUyPwMd6CGB
	aPtcTRgGWrUKbDKhcRqyEEgvtEZWqqxG2oSmXjvrRI=
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201107/170
X-Sequence-Number: 44382

On 07/16/2011 06:33 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> 2.6 ms for an fsync seems awfully quick.  I wonder if EBS uses
> nonvolatile/battery-backed write cache, or if it just lies about fsync
> actually hitting disk.
>    

They have the right type of cache in there to make fsync quick, when you 
happen to be the lucky one to find it free of a write backlog.  So the 
best case is much better than a typical spinning drive with no such 
cache.  The worst case is in the 100ms+ range though on EBS.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD