Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- From: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
- To: <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
- Cc: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:19:39 -0500
- Message-id: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A7631(at)Herge(dot)rcsinc(dot)local>
> MS is big enough and bad enough to get all the info they need from the > various drive makers to know how to handle write cache flushing. Even the > stuff that isn't documented. Yup. This includes all the raid controllers I've tested... > Also, I would like to see this test performed on NTFS and FAT32, and see > if you are more likely to lose data on FAT32. FAT32 is not journaling...you could see corruption at the filesystem level, not to mention the fact that windows would want to run chkdsk every time the system reboots. Merlin
- Prev by Date: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCHES] Repleacement for src/port/snprintf.c
- Previous by thread: Re: [Slony1-general] Slony under win32
- Next by thread: Re: snprintf causes regression tests to fail
- Indexes: