On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, James Mansion wrote:
But isn't it the case that while using background writer might result in
*slightly* more data to write (since data that is updated several times
might actually be sent several times), the total amount of data in both
cases is much the same?
Really de
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Spreng)
wrote:
> On 16.04.2008, at 17:42, Chris Browne wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Spreng) writes:
>>> On 16.04.2008, at 01:24, PFC wrote:
> The queries in question (select's) occasionally take up to 5 mins
>
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Thomas Spreng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 16.04.2008, at 17:42, Chris Browne wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Spreng) writes:
> >
> > > On 16.04.2008, at 01:24, PFC wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The queries in question (select's) occasionally t
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Gunther Mayer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>
> > 2. The existing block should have enough free space to accommodate the
> > new version
> > A less than 100 fillfactor may help you given your rate of updates.
> >
> >
> I see, as soon as a new
Greg Smith wrote:
Using the background writer more assures that the cache on the
controller is going to be written to aggressively, so it may be
somewhat filled already come checkpoint time. If you leave the writer
off, when the checkpoint comes you're much more likely to have the
full 2GB av
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Marinos Yannikos wrote:
Controller is
http://www.infortrend.com/main/2_product/es_a08(12)f-g2422.asp with 2GB
cache (writeback was enabled).
Ah. Sometimes these fiber channel controllers can get a little weird
(compared with more direct storage) when the cache gets comp
