On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> (Please follow Mail-Followup-To, I'm not on the pgsql-performance
> mailing list but am on the Linux-XFS mailing list. My apologies too for
> the cross-post. I'm cc'ing the Linux-XFS mailing list in case people
> there will be interested in this, t
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Just wonderin. What if you symlink WAL to a directory which is on
>> mounted USB RAM drive?
> USB 2.0 you mean? It supposedly runs at 1394 speeds, but USB 1.0/1.1
> runs at 1MB/s under ideal circumstances... that's slower than even old
> IDE drives.
> Just wonderin. What if you symlink WAL to a directory which is on
> mounted USB RAM drive?
USB 2.0 you mean? It supposedly runs at 1394 speeds, but USB 1.0/1.1
runs at 1MB/s under ideal circumstances... that's slower than even old
IDE drives.
> Will that increase any throughput?
Probably not.
On 3 Sep 2003 at 23:36, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > - the way PostgreSQL expects data to be written to disk without the
> >fsync calls for things not to get corrupted in the event of a crash,
> >and
>
> If you want the filesystem to deal with this, I believe it is necessary
> for it to write t
> - the way PostgreSQL expects data to be written to disk without the
>fsync calls for things not to get corrupted in the event of a crash,
>and
If you want the filesystem to deal with this, I believe it is necessary
for it to write the data out in the same order the write requests are
su
(Please follow Mail-Followup-To, I'm not on the pgsql-performance
mailing list but am on the Linux-XFS mailing list. My apologies too for
the cross-post. I'm cc'ing the Linux-XFS mailing list in case people
there will be interested in this, too.)
Hi,
We have a server running PostgreSQL v7.3.3 on
