Yeah it doesn't actually affect my use cases, as long as there are no
corruptions I'm happy. If I wanted to make sure everything is written to
disk straight away I'd probably manually make a kernel call to flush
system and disk caches and need to test it on each platform.
Some RAID controllers and filesystems like ZFS can handle synchronous
writes very efficiently, so you wouldn't experience the slow down.
On 29/01/2014 2:04 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Hi,
On a side note, it's probably been discussed to death, but
wouldn't sync after every transaction be advisable? Then you know
once a transaction is committed it can't be lost...
Yes, this has been discussed before. Everything would be terribly slow
(sometimes nearly unusable), and the advantage is questionable. You
would probably lose less transactions when there is a power failure,
but what would that gain you? And you might still lose some
transactions, as fsync doesn't always work as expected (see the docs).
I think the current behavior is acceptable for most use cases (you can
lose up to about 1 seconds of transactions).
Regards,
Thomas
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "H2 Database" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to h2-database+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to h2-database@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2
Database" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to h2-database+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to h2-database@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
