The way you mentioned only involves one long update, not 100 long updates is
good, however, I met the problem in the performance test and found that the
results in two kinds of set-up box are in great difference in committing
transaction. Maybe it's related to hardware performance. What's
Thank you for your response. The disk I mentioned is the hard disk.
Fsync is moving data from memory to hard disk. When I removed the hard
disk from the box and fsync is still called in sqlite, in this case of
course, data will not be moved successfully to hard disk but fsync will
still do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/20/2015 01:12 AM, Wei, Catherine wrote:
What's strange is that when I remove the disk, the difference still
exists. It takes long time for fsync working with no disks, which
has confused me for several days.
What exactly do you mean by no
I've printed log out in the case of no disk, and the log shows that file
descriptor that I sent to fsync as an argument is 27, and the fsync
functions is called. But I don't know what will fsync do without a disk.
Appreciate for your quick response and great help.
On 01/19/2015 06:30 PM, Stephan
I've tested it in two kinds of Set-Up box. In one box, it costs about
5ms while in the other box, it costs 30ms. Disks have been removed on
both of them. It's strange why the difference is so big.
Appreciate for you response, thank you.
On 01/20/2015 04:46 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 1/19/15,
Thank you for your answer very much. But I have removed the disk from
my set-up box, the data will be saved in memory and the system doesn't
know there's no disk, it will still call fsync. What do you think in
this case?
Appreciate your quick response and great help.
On 01/19/2015 05:25 PM,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Wei, Catherine catherine@arris.com
wrote:
Thank you for your answer very much. But I have removed the disk from
my set-up box, the data will be saved in memory and the system doesn't
know there's no disk, it will still call fsync. What do you think in
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:49 AM, Wei, Catherine catherine@arris.com
wrote:
Hi, I'm running a software in a set-up box with linux system and find
that every time when I commit transaction, sqlite takes too much time
when it executes fsync or fdatasync function. What could be the possible
On 19 Jan 2015, at 5:38am, Wei, Catherine catherine@arris.com wrote:
The time i'm looking at is the duration that function fsync or fdatasync
executes, it's about 30ms. I don't know wether it's related to linux
kernel or something related. I've tested it in another kind of set-up
box and
On 1/19/15, Roger Binns rog...@rogerbinns.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/18/2015 06:49 PM, Wei, Catherine wrote:
takes too much time when it executes fsync or fdatasync function.
Note that although the documentation says only the file handle is
synced, in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/18/2015 06:49 PM, Wei, Catherine wrote:
takes too much time when it executes fsync or fdatasync function.
Note that although the documentation says only the file handle is
synced, in practise many filesystems actually sync the whole
filesystem
On 01/19/2015 01:19 PM, Stephen Chrzanowski wrote:
What kind of times are you looking at, and, what is the data being written
to?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Wei, Catherine catherine@arris.com
wrote:
Hi, I'm running a software in a set-up box with linux system and find
that every
Hi, I'm running a software in a set-up box with linux system and find
that every time when I commit transaction, sqlite takes too much time
when it executes fsync or fdatasync function. What could be the possible
reasons?
I've removed the disk from my set-up box and sqlite data are all saved
in
What kind of times are you looking at, and, what is the data being written
to?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Wei, Catherine catherine@arris.com
wrote:
Hi, I'm running a software in a set-up box with linux system and find
that every time when I commit transaction, sqlite takes too much
14 matches
Mail list logo
