Re: [HACKERS] Continuous buildfarm failures on hamster with bin-check
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Continuous buildfarm failures on hamster with bin-check |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 13914.1492530487@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Continuous buildfarm failures on hamster with bin-check (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Continuous buildfarm failures on hamster with bin-check
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> FWIW, I'm a bit suspicious of relocating the temp stats directory as >> being a reliable fix for this. > It's an SD card (the kind typically used in cameras and phones), not SSD. > Saying it's slow is an understatement. It's *excruciatingly* slow. Oh, I misread it ... but still, the modern definition of "excruciatingly slow" doesn't seem all that far off what 90s-era hard drives could do. It is clear from googling though that there's an enormous performance range in SD cards' random write performance, eg wikipedia's entry has a link to http://goughlui.com/2014/01/16/testing-sd-card-performance-round-up/ Seems like it's hard to judge this without knowing exactly which SD card Michael has got in that thing. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: