[Roché Compaan]
...
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zodb-dev/2004-July/007682.html
...
[Lennart Regebro]
I read this thread, and it seems to me that the ultimate solution
would be to have a setting for FSStorage, say fsync-behaviour with
the options of single, double, none or interval. We'd
On 10/11/06, Roché Compaan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm tempted to deploy ZODB without fsync on some production FileStorage
instances. Will I regret it?
There was a mention that most SQL-databases do it only each X commits.
That might be an idea? That means that in worst case you lose X
You can read what is said about it on PostgreSQL, which has a similar
setting. The setting could be very good for (for example) restoring
from a backup, where performance is most important and, in case of
crash, you have a backup anyway.
Regards
Marco
On 10/11/06, Roché Compaan [EMAIL
On 10/11/06, Roché Compaan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zodb-dev/2004-July/007682.html
I read this thread, and it seems to me that the ultimate solution
would be to have a setting for FSStorage, say fsync-behaviour with
the options of single, double, none or
+1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 10/11/06, Roché Compaan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zodb-dev/2004-July/007682.html
I read this thread, and it seems to me that the ultimate solution
would be to have a setting for FSStorage, say fsync-behaviour with
the options of
+1 from me too, this feels like a really good proposal :-)
Chris
Jim Fulton wrote:
+1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 10/11/06, Roché Compaan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zodb-dev/2004-July/007682.html
I read this thread, and it seems to me that the ultimate solution
Has anybody been using Zope with a ZODB patched to not call fsync since
the fsync thread in July 2004:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zodb-dev/2004-July/007682.html
I just took Tim Peters' timefsync.py for a spin on some of our servers
and got transaction rates from 4 to 10 times faster,
