Jan Wieck wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > 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.
Yes, but my point is two-fold --- first, someone reported we can do open, fsync, close reliably, second, I need that for Win32 (no sync), and third, if we can handle the case for servers with other applications on the box, why not do that? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
