Re: performance on new linux box - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Ryan Wexler
Subject Re: performance on new linux box
Date
Msg-id AANLkTilIaUg3-ethCx_a86HY1PoaT1ZbB1kG7Rxka5tq@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: performance on new linux box  (Ben Chobot <bench@silentmedia.com>)
Responses Re: performance on new linux box
List pgsql-performance


On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Ben Chobot <bench@silentmedia.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Scott Carey wrote:

>> Many raid controllers are smart enough to always turn off write caching on the drives, and also disable the feature on their own buffer without a BBU. Add a BBU, and the cache on the controller starts getting used, but *not* the cache on the drives.
>
> This does not make sense.
> Write caching on all hard drives in the last decade are safe because they support a write cache flush command properly.  If the card is "smart" it would issue the drive's write cache flush command to fulfill an fsync() or barrier request with no BBU.

You're missing the point. If the power dies suddenly, there's no time to flush any cache anywhere. That's the entire point of the BBU - it keeps the RAM powered up on the raid card. It doesn't keep the disks spinning long enough to flush caches.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

So you are saying write caching is a dangerous proposition on a raid card with or without BBU?

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Question of using COPY on a table with triggers
Next
From: Ben Chobot
Date:
Subject: Re: performance on new linux box