Bruce Momjian wrote:
The definitive guide to servers vs. desktop drives is:
http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
Yeah - very nice paper, well worth a read (in spite of the fact that it
is also Seagate propaganda, supporting th
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> 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.
> >
>
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
> > 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
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
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
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
> <[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
<[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´
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-
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
