"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:02:39 +0000 > Gregory Stark <stark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I'm not sure what you guys' expectations are, but if you're restoring >> 5 minutes worth of database traffic in 8 seconds I wouldn't be >> complaining. > > I would be. This is a database that is doing nothing but restoring. > Zero concurrency. This thing should be flying. Well you say that like concurrency is a bad thing. The lack of concurrency is the big handicap recovery has. It has to wait while it loads one buffer so it can twiddle some bits before it reads the next buffer and twiddles bits there. During normal operation those two buffers were twiddled by two different transactions in two different processes. Even if they weren't on two different processes they could have been context switched onto the same processor while the i/o was in progress. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
