Gregory Stark wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:02:39 +0000
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure what you guys' expectations are, but if you're restoring
5 minutes worth of database traffic in 8 seconds I wouldn't be
complaining.
I would be. This is a database that is doing nothing but restoring.
Zero concurrency. This thing should be flying.
Well you say that like concurrency is a bad thing. The lack of concurrency is
the big handicap recovery has. It has to wait while it loads one buffer so it
can twiddle some bits before it reads the next buffer and twiddles bits there.
During normal operation those two buffers were twiddled by two different
transactions in two different processes. Even if they weren't on two different
processes they could have been context switched onto the same processor while
the i/o was in progress.
Please see my point about saturation in another post.
Joshua D. Drake
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
