From: Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@mnc.ch>
To: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Choosing a filesystem
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:38:45 +0200
Message-ID: <873ak5iwru.fsf@mnc.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48C97740.9040404@emolecules.com>
References: <48C94770.2090505@shopzeus.com>
<alpine.DEB.1.10.0809111814130.4454@aragorn.flymine.org>
<20080911172332.GP6714@it.is.rice.edu>
<48C90F58.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
<48C959BD.80307@shopzeus.com>
<48C97740.9040404@emolecules.com>
Craig James <craig_james 'at' emolecules.com> writes:
> The performance improvement of a BB cache is amazing.
Could some of you share the insight on why this is the case? I
cannot find much information on it on wikipedia, for example.
Even http://linuxfinances.info/info/diskusage.html doesn't
explain *why*.
Out of the blue, is it just because when postgresql fsync's after
a write, on a normal system the write has to really happen on
disk and waiting for it to be complete, whereas with BBU cache
the fsync is almost immediate because the write cache actually
replaces the "really on disk" write?
--
Guillaume Cottenceau, MNC Mobile News Channel SA, an Alcatel-Lucent Company
Av. de la Gare 10, 1003 Lausanne, Switzerland - direct +41 21 317 50 36
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: gc@mnc.ch, craig_james@emolecules.com
Subject: Re: Choosing a filesystem
In-Reply-To: <873ak5iwru.fsf@mnc.ch>
* 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