Re: no universally correct setting for fsync
От
Joshua D. Drake
Тема
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync
Дата
Msg-id
1273516977.8624.18.camel@jd-desktop.iso-8859-1.charter.com
Ответ на
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync (Greg Stark)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
no universally correct setting for fsync "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Michael Tharp <gxti@partiallystapled.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Cédric Villemain <cedric.villemain.debian@gmail.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: no universally correct setting for fsync Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 18:46 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Kevin Grittner > wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > > > >> "It might be safe" is a bit of a waffle. It would be nice if we > >> could provide some more clear guidance as to whether it is or is > >> not, or how someone could go about testing their hardware to find > >> out. > > > > I think that the issue is that you could have corruption if some, > > but not all, disk sectors from a page were written from OS cache to > > controller cache when a failure occurred. The window would be small > > for a RAM-to-RAM write, but it wouldn't be entirely *safe* unless > > there's some OS/driver environment where you could count on all the > > sectors making it or none of them making it for every single page. > > Does such an environment exist? > > The reason for the waffle is that the following sentence describes a > whole set of environments based the following description: > > > > ? ? ? ?if you have hardware (such as a battery-backed > > > ? ? ? ?disk controller) or file-system software that reduces the risk > > > ? ? ? ?of partial page writes to an acceptably low level > > Depending on which set of hardware and how low the risk is it might be safe. > > I think with WAFL or ZFS it's entirely safe. There may be other > filesystems with similar guarantees. With a BBU the risk might be very > low -- but it might not, it would be hard to determine without a > detailed analysis of the entire stack from the buffer cache, > filesystem, lvm, hardware drivers, BBU design, etc. > The answer to this is: PostgreSQL.org recommends that this setting be left on at all times. Turning it off, may lead to data corruption. Anything else is circumstantial and based on knowledge and facts we don't have about environmental factors. Joshua D. Drake > -- > greg > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления