Re: Postgres, fsync and RAID controller with 100M of internal cache & dedicated battery

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To:
Cc: Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgres, fsync and RAID controller with 100M of internal cache & dedicated battery
Date: 2007-08-23 03:16:10
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0708222313270.13185@westnet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Ron Johnson wrote:

> That seems to be a very extreme ratio. Most databases do *many*
> times more reads than writes.

Yes, but the OS has a lot more memory to cache the reads for you, so you
should be relying more heavily on it in cases like this where the card has
a relatively small amount of memory. The main benefit for having a
caching controller is fsync acceleration, the reads should pass right
through the controller's cache and then stay in system RAM afterwards if
they're needed again.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Amiel 2007-08-23 03:23:16 Re: pg_dump causes postgres crash
Previous Message Jeff Amiel 2007-08-23 02:44:25 pg_dump causes postgres crash