Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4CC4672D.9040401@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles (Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Jesper Krogh wrote: > Can you point to some ZFS docs that tell that this is the case.. I'd > be surprised > if it doesnt copy away the old block and replaces it with the new one > in-place. The > other behaviour would quite quickly lead to a hugely fragmented > filesystem that > performs next to useless and ZFS doesnt seem to be in that category.. http://all-unix.blogspot.com/2007/03/zfs-cow-and-relate-features.html "Blocks containing active data are never overwritten in place; instead, a new block is allocated, modified data is written to it, and then any metadata blocks referencing it are similarly read, reallocated, and written." http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=19264 discusses how this interacts with the common types of hardware around: no guaratees with lying hard drives as always, but otherwise you're fine. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: