On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 15:35:13 +1030,
Shane Ambler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From all that I have heard this is another advantage of SCSI disks -
they honor these settings as you would expect - many IDE/SATA disks
often say sure I'll disable the cache but continue to use it or don't
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:21:41 +1030,
Shane Ambler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between SCSI and IDE/SATA in this case is a lot if not
all IDE/SATA drives tell you that the cache is disabled when you ask it
to but they either don't actually disable it or they don't retain the
On 2/27/07, Shane Ambler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Davis wrote:
Sorry for for not being familar with storage techonologies... Does
battery here mean battery in the common sense of the word - some
kind of independent power supply? Shouldn't the disk itself be backed
by a battery? As
Just remember that batteries (in both RAID cards and UPSes) wear out
and will eventually have to be replaced. It depends how critical your
data is, but if you only have a UPS, you risk badness in the off
chance that your power fails and you haven't replaced your UPS battery.
On Feb 27,
Peter Kovacs wrote:
The reason this becomes an issue is that many consumer-grade disks have
write cache enabled by default and no way to make sure the cached data
actually gets written. So, essentially, these disks lie and say they
wrote the data, when in reality, it's in volatile memory.
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 13:23, Jeff Davis wrote:
Also, put things in context. The chances of failure due to these kinds
of things are fairly low. If it's more likely that someone spills coffee
on your server than the UPS fails, it doesn't make sense to spend huge
amounts of money on NVRAM (or
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 23:11 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
A related question:
Is it sufficient to disable write cache only on the disk where pg_xlog
is located? Or should write cache be disabled on both disks?
When PostgreSQL does a checkpoint, it thinks the data pages before the
checkpoint
On 2/26/07, Jeff Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 23:11 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
A related question:
Is it sufficient to disable write cache only on the disk where pg_xlog
is located? Or should write cache be disabled on both disks?
When PostgreSQL does a checkpoint,
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 01:11 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
On 2/26/07, Jeff Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 23:11 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
A related question:
Is it sufficient to disable write cache only on the disk where pg_xlog
is located? Or should write cache be
A related question:
Is it sufficient to disable write cache only on the disk where pg_xlog
is located? Or should write cache be disabled on both disks?
Thanks
Peter
On 2/25/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carlos Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question is: does PostgreSQL have
Say that I have a dual-core processor (AMD64), with, say, 2GB of memory
to run PostgreSQL 8.2.3 on Fedora Core X.
I have the option to put two hard disks (SATA2, most likely); I'm
wondering
what would be the optimal configuration from the point of view of
performance.
I do have the option
Carlos Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question is: does PostgreSQL have separate, independent areas that
require storage such that performance would be noticeably boosted if
the multiple storage operations could be done simultaneously?
The standard advice in this area is to put pg_xlog
On Feb 25, 2007, at 04:39 , Carlos Moreno wrote:
I do have the option to configure it in RAID-0, but I'm sort of
reluctant; I think
there's the possibility that having two filesystems that can be
accessed truly
simultaneously can be more beneficial. The question is: does
PostgreSQL
have
13 matches
Mail list logo
