Tom Lane wrote: > Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That is part of the idea. The whole idea is to issue "physical" writes > > at a fairly steady rate without increasing the number of them > > substantial or interfering with the drives opinion about their order too > > much. I think O_SYNC for random access can be in conflict with write > > reordering. > > Good point. But if we issue lots of writes without fsync then we still > have the problem of a write storm when the fsync finally occurs, while > if we fsync too often then we constrain the write order too much. There > will need to be some tuning here.
I know the BSD's have trickle sync --- if we write the dirty buffers to kernel buffers many seconds before our checkpoint, the kernel might right them to disk for use and sync() will not need to do it. -- 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
