Re: RES: [PERFORM] Initial database loading and IDE x SCSI

2006-06-02 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Mark Lewis wrote: The naive approach works on IDE drives because they don't (usually) honor the request to write the data immediately, so it can fill its write cache up with several megabytes of data and write it out to the disk at its leisure. FWIW - If you are using MacOS X or Windows, the

RES: RES: RES: [PERFORM] Initial database loading and IDE x SCSI

2006-06-02 Thread carlosreimer
> > Many thanks Mark, > > > > I will consider fsync=off only to do an initial load, not for a > database normal operation. > > > > This approach works well. You just need to remember to shut down the > database and start it back up again with fsync enabled for it to be safe > after the initial

Re: RES: RES: [PERFORM] Initial database loading and IDE x SCSI

2006-06-02 Thread Mark Lewis
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 17:37 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Many thanks Mark, > > I will consider fsync=off only to do an initial load, not for a database > normal operation. > This approach works well. You just need to remember to shut down the database and start it back up again with fsync

RES: RES: [PERFORM] Initial database loading and IDE x SCSI

2006-06-02 Thread carlosreimer
Many thanks Mark, I will consider fsync=off only to do an initial load, not for a database normal operation. I was just thinking about this hipotetical scenario: a) a restore database operation b) fsync off c) write-back on (IDE) As I could understand, in this sceneraio, it´s normal the IDE dr

Re: RES: [PERFORM] Initial database loading and IDE x SCSI

2006-06-02 Thread Mark Lewis
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:54 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I would like to know if my supposition is right. > > > > > Considering an environment with only one hard disk attached to > > a server, an > > > initial loading of the database probably is much faster

RES: [PERFORM] Initial database loading and IDE x SCSI

2006-06-02 Thread carlosreimer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I would like to know if my supposition is right. > > > Considering an environment with only one hard disk attached to > a server, an > > initial loading of the database probably is much faster using an IDE/ATA > > interface with write-back on than using an SCSI int

Re: [PERFORM] Initial database loading and IDE x SCSI

2006-06-02 Thread Tom Lane
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would like to know if my supposition is right. > Considering an environment with only one hard disk attached to a server, an > initial loading of the database probably is much faster using an IDE/ATA > interface with write-back on than using an SCSI interface. That´

Re: [PERFORM] Initial database loading and IDE x SCSI

2006-06-02 Thread Mark Lewis
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 15:25 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to know if my supposition is right. > > Considering an environment with only one hard disk attached to a server, an > initial loading of the database probably is much faster using an IDE/ATA > interface with write-

Re: [PERFORM] Initial database loading and IDE x SCSI

2006-06-02 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 13:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to know if my supposition is right. > > Considering an environment with only one hard disk attached to a server, an > initial loading of the database probably is much faster using an IDE/ATA > interface with write-back o

[PERFORM] Initial database loading and IDE x SCSI

2006-06-02 Thread carlosreimer
Hi, I would like to know if my supposition is right. Considering an environment with only one hard disk attached to a server, an initial loading of the database probably is much faster using an IDE/ATA interface with write-back on than using an SCSI interface. That´s because of the SCSI command i

Re: [PERFORM] help me problems with pg_clog file

2006-06-02 Thread Gourish Singbal
  Joao,   If you had send the Email to pgsql-admin mailing list you would have got a faster answer to ur query..   here is what i managed to do:- 1. I deleted the $ls -lart the pg_clog folder total 756-rw---   1 postgres users 262144 2006-04-10 17:16 0001-rw---   1 postgres users 262144 20