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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
