On 2.3.2012 03:05, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
Maybe. I still am not sure how fsync=off affects the eviction in your
opinion. I think it does not (or just very remotely) and you were saying
the opposite. IMHO the eviction of (dirty)
On 28.2.2012 17:42, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
On 28 Únor 2012, 15:24, Claudio Freire wrote:
It speeds a lot more than the initial load of data.
Assuming the database is read-only, but not the filesystem (ie: it's
not a slave, in
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
Maybe. I still am not sure how fsync=off affects the eviction in your
opinion. I think it does not (or just very remotely) and you were saying
the opposite. IMHO the eviction of (dirty) buffers is either very fast
or slow, no
On 28 Únor 2012, 15:24, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I haven't investigated why exactly the data are not cached initially,
but
none of the options that I can think of could be fixed by setting
fsync=off. That's something that
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
On 28 Únor 2012, 15:24, Claudio Freire wrote:
It speeds a lot more than the initial load of data.
Assuming the database is read-only, but not the filesystem (ie: it's
not a slave, in which case all this is moot, as you said,
