Re: Mount options for Ext3?
От | pgsql.spam@vinz.nl |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Mount options for Ext3? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20030125232154.GK14898@md2.mediadesign.nl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Mount options for Ext3? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Mount options for Ext3?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 2003-01-24 21:58:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > The key assumption we are making about the filesystem's behavior is that > writes scheduled by the sync() will occur before the pg_control write > that's issued after it. People have occasionally faulted this algorithm > by quoting the sync() man page, which saith (in the Gospel According To > HP) > > The writing, although scheduled, is not necessarily complete upon > return from sync. > > This, however, is not a problem in itself. What we need to know is > whether the filesystem will allow writes issued after the sync() to > complete before those "scheduled" by the sync(). > Certain linux 2.4.* kernels (not sure which, newer ones don't seem to have it) have the following kernel config option: Use the NOOP Elevator (WARNING) CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ELEVATOR_NOOP If you are using a raid class top-level driver above the ATA/IDE core, one may find a performance boost by preventing a merging and re-sorting of the new requests. If unsure, say N. If one were certain his OS wouldn't do any re-ordering of writes, would it be safe to run with fsync = off? (not that I'm going to try this, but I'm just curious) Vincent van Leeuwen Media Design
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: