Re: performance on new linux box
От | Ben Chobot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: performance on new linux box |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6A7F9A16-F50B-43AE-B349-174726564292@silentmedia.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: performance on new linux box (Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: performance on new linux box
Re: performance on new linux box |
Список | pgsql-performance |
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 ontheir own buffer without a BBU. Add a BBU, and the cache on the controller starts getting used, but *not* the cache onthe 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 requestwith 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 pointof the BBU - it keeps the RAM powered up on the raid card. It doesn't keep the disks spinning long enough to flush caches.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: