A.M. wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > A.M. wrote:
> Because the fastest option may not be syncing to disk. For example,
> the only option that makes sense on OS X is fsync_writethrough- it
> would be helpful if the tool pointed that out (on OS X on
On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> A.M. wrote:
Because the fastest option may not be syncing to disk. For example,
the only option that makes sense on OS X is fsync_writethrough- it
would be helpful if the tool pointed that out (on OS X only, obviously).
>>>
>>> Y
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >>> I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
> >>> values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
>
> >> Given that it was unclear whether the first suc
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>> I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
>>> values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
>> Given that it was unclear whether the first such test was of any value,
>> wh
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
> > values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
>
> Given that it was unclear whether the first such test was of any value,
> why are you slowing down the
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
> values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
Given that it was unclear whether the first such test was of any value,
why are you slowing down the program by adding more?
A.M. wrote:
> >> Because the fastest option may not be syncing to disk. For example,
> >> the only option that makes sense on OS X is fsync_writethrough- it
> >> would be helpful if the tool pointed that out (on OS X only, obviously).
> >
> > Yes, that would be a serious problem. :-(
> >
> > I a
On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> A.M. wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> A.M. wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
> valu
A.M. wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > A.M. wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
> >>> values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different
On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> A.M. wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
>>> values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
>>> This should make
A.M. wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
> > values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
> > This should make the program easier for novices to understand. Here is
>
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
> values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
> This should make the program easier for novices to understand. Here is
> a test run for Ubuntu 11
I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
This should make the program easier for novices to understand. Here is
a test run for Ubuntu 11.04:
$ ./test_fsync
2000 operations per tes
13 matches
Mail list logo
