> >>1. Open WAL files with O_SYNC|O_DIRECT or O_SYNC(Not sure if
> > Without grouping WAL writes that does not fly. Iff however such grouping
> > is implemented that should deliver optimal performance. I don't think flushing
> > WAL to the OS early (before a tx commits) is necessary, since writi
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
1. Open WAL files with O_SYNC|O_DIRECT or O_SYNC(Not sure if
Without grouping WAL writes that does not fly. Iff however such grouping
is implemented that should deliver optimal performance. I don't think flushing
WAL to the OS early (before a tx commits) is necess
> If the background writer uses fsync, it can write and allow the buffer
> to be reused and fsync later, while if we use O_SYNC, we have to wait
> for the O_SYNC write to happen before reusing the buffer;
> that will be slower.
You can forget O_SYNC for datafiles for now. There would simply be
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On Friday 14 November 2003 22:10, Jan Wieck wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On Friday 14 November 2003 03:05, Jan Wieck wrote:
For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
recently written files. And I think the algorith
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On Friday 14 November 2003 22:10, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > On Friday 14 November 2003 03:05, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > >> For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
> > >> recently written files. And I think the algorith
> 1. Open WAL files with O_SYNC|O_DIRECT or O_SYNC(Not sure if
Without grouping WAL writes that does not fly. Iff however such grouping
is implemented that should deliver optimal performance. I don't think flushing
WAL to the OS early (before a tx commits) is necessary, since writing 8k or 256
On Friday 14 November 2003 22:10, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On Friday 14 November 2003 03:05, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
> >> recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often
> >> to flus
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> >> Having fsync for regular data files and sync for WAL segment a comfortable
> >> compramise? Or this is going to use fsync for all of them.
>
> > I think we still need sync() for WAL because sometimes
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>> Having fsync for regular data files and sync for WAL segment a comfortable
>> compramise? Or this is going to use fsync for all of them.
> I think we still need sync() for WAL because sometimes backends are
> going to have
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On Friday 14 November 2003 03:05, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
> > recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often
> > to flush can be significantly improved. But after all, this does
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On Friday 14 November 2003 03:05, Jan Wieck wrote:
For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often
to flush can be significantly improved. But after all, this does not
change th
On Friday 14 November 2003 03:05, Jan Wieck wrote:
> For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
> recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often
> to flush can be significantly improved. But after all, this does not
> change the real checkpointing
Jan Wieck wrote:
> That is all right and as said, how often, how much and how forced we do
> the IO can all be configurable and as flexible as people see fit. But
> whether you use sync(), fsync(), fdatasync(), O_SYNC, O_DSYNC or
> posix_fadvise(), somewhere you have to do the write(). And that
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 05:39:32PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > He found that write() itself didn't encourage the kernel to write the
> > > > buffers to disk fast enough. I think the final solution will be to use
> > > > f
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 05:39:32PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > He found that write() itself didn't encourage the kernel to write the
> > buffers to disk fast enough. I think the final solution will be to use
> > fsync or O_SYNC.
>
> w
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 05:39:32PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > He found that write() itself didn't encourage the kernel to write the
> > > buffers to disk fast enough. I think the final solution will be to use
> > > fsync or O_SYNC.
> >
> > write(
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:35:31PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> > For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
> >> > recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often
> >> > to f
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:35:31PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
> recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often
> to flush can be significantly improved. But after
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:35:31PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
> > recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often
> > to flush can be significantly improved. But after all, this doe
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:35:31PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> For sure the sync() needs to be replaced by the discussed fsync() of
> recently written files. And I think the algorithm how much and how often
> to flush can be significantly improved. But after all, this does not
> change the real ch
20 matches
Mail list logo
