Jan Wieck wrote:
What doing frequent fdatasync/fsync during a constant ongoing checkpoint will cause is to significantly lower the physical write storm happening at the sync(), which is causing huge problems right now.
I don't see that frankly because sync() is syncing everying on that machine, including other file systems. Reducing our own load from sync will not help with other applications writing to drives.
You have 4 kids, Bruce. If you buy only two lollypops, how many of them can share the room unattended?
What I described is absolutely sufficient for a dedicated DB server. We will be able to coordinate the resources between the various components of PostgreSQL, no doubt. Everyone who has significant performance problems because of I/O saturation, and is still keeping other I/O heavy applications on the same box instead of separating the things, is either not serious or dumb ... or both.
Jan
PS: I know your kids can, but it serves too well ... ;-)
-- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
