Ben wrote:
> Base-two artihmetic sounds pretty broad. If only you could come up with a
> scheme for division and multiplication by powers of two through
> bitshifting.
I already have that patent! :-)
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Base-two artihmetic sounds pretty broad. If only you could come up with a
scheme for division and multiplication by powers of two through
bitshifting.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Randolf Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> They've managed to patent ye olde elevator algorith
>>> "we have no portable means of expressing that exact constraint to the
>>> kernel"
>> Does this mean that specific operating systems have a better way of
>> dealing with this? Which ones and how?
>
> I'm not aware of any that offer a way of expressing "write these
> particular blocks before th
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 01:04:27PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> If it runs out of spare blocks, then you're in trouble. And there's no warning
> that you're running low on spare blocks in any particular region unless you
> use special utilities to query the drive. Also if the failure is caused by
> e
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, some googleing around seems to indicate that Serial ATA I/ATA-6 has
> Tagged Command Queueing (TCQ) which is adding this feature specifically.
> Whether it is a mandatory part of the spec I don't know.
Yeah? If so, and *if fully implement
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:17:59AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Rick Gigger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Do serial ATA drives suffer from the same issue?
>
> Um, not an expert, but I think ATA is the same as IDE except for bus
> width and transfer rate. If either one allows for multiple concurre
"Rick Gigger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "we have no portable means of expressing that exact constraint to the
>> kernel"
> Does this mean that specific operating systems have a better way of dealing
> with this? Which ones and how?
I'm not aware of any that offer a way of expressing "write t
k Gigger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SCSI vs. IDE performance test
> "Rick Gigger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ahhh. "lies about write order" is the phrase that I was lo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SCSI vs. IDE performance test
> "Rick Gigger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems to me file system journaling should fix the whole problem by
giving
&g
Tom, this discussion brings up something that's been bugging me about the
recommendations for getting more performance out of PG.. in particular the
one that suggests you put your WAL files on a different physical drive from
the database.
Consider the following scenario:
Database on drive1
WAL
mjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Stephen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SCSI vs. IDE performance test
> Mike Benoit wrote:
> > I just ran some benchmarks aga
Dann Corbit wrote:
Unwrap this link (if your newsreader folds it) and click on it for hard
drive performance:
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=1
0&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=232&devID_1=237&
devID_2=213&devID_3=221&devID_4=216&devID_
Unwrap this link (if your newsreader folds it) and click on it for hard
drive performance:
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=1
0&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=232&devID_1=237&
devID_2=213&devID_3=221&devID_4=216&devID_5=249&devID_6=250&de
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:02 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SCSI vs. IDE performance test
>
>
> The SCSI improvement over IDE seems overrated in the test. I
> wo
14 matches
Mail list logo
