A.M. wrote: > >> Because the fastest option may not be syncing to disk. For example, > >> the only option that makes sense on OS X is fsync_writethrough- it > >> would be helpful if the tool pointed that out (on OS X only, obviously). > > > > Yes, that would be a serious problem. :-( > > > > I am not sure how we would address this --- your point is a good one. > > One general idea I had would be to offer some heuristics such as "this > sync rate is comparable to that of one SATA drive" or "comparable to > RAID 10 with X drives" or "this rate is likely too fast to be actually > be syncing". But then you are stuck with making sure that the heuristics > are kept up-to-date, which would be annoying.
That fails for RAID BBUs. > Otherwise, the only option I see is to detect the kernel and compare > against a list of known problematic methods. Perhaps it would be easier > to compare against a whitelist. Also, the tool would likely need to > parse "mount" output to account for problems with specific filesystems. > > I am just throwing around some ideas... That sounds pretty complicated. One idea would be the creation of a wiki where people could post their results, or ideally a tool that could read the output and load it into a database for analysis with other results. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
