Re: more anti-postgresql FUD
От | AgentM |
---|---|
Тема | Re: more anti-postgresql FUD |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 093E468E-CE71-4E26-B258-BCB6516230DE@themactionfaction.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: more anti-postgresql FUD ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: more anti-postgresql FUD
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Oct 13, 2006, at 14:36 , Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Alexander Staubo (alex@purefiction.net) wrote: >>> What formula did you use to get to that number? Is there a generic >>> way on Linux to turn off (controller-based?) write caching? >> >> Just a side-note, but if you've got a pretty good expectation that >> you >> won't be without power for 24 consecutive hours ever you can get a >> controller with a battery-backed write cache (some will do better >> than >> 24 hours too). For the performance concerned... :) > > No to mention if you are *that* concerned you could buy a generator > for > 500 bucks that will keep the machine alive if you absolutely have to. > > There is nothing wrong with write back cache as long as you have the > infrastructure to support it. Why does the battery have to be at that level? It's seems like a reasonable poor man's solution would be to have a standard $50 UPS plugged in and have the UPS signal postgresql to shut down and sync. Then, theoretically, it would be safe to run with fsync=off. The level of risk seems the same no? -M
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: