Обсуждение: no universally correct setting for fsync
Someone just posted to the -admin list with a database corrupted while running with fsync=off. I was all set to refer him to the documentation explaining why he should stop doing this, but to my surprise the documentation waffles on the issue way past what I think is reasonable. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-FSYNC There are dire-sounding statements interspersed with: | using fsync results in a performance penalty | Due to the risks involved, there is no universally correct setting | for fsync. | If you trust your operating system, your hardware, and your | utility company (or your battery backup), you can consider | disabling fsync. Isn't this a little too rosy a picture to paint? -Kevin
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Someone just posted to the -admin list with a database corrupted > while running with fsync=off. I was all set to refer him to the > documentation explaining why he should stop doing this, but to my > surprise the documentation waffles on the issue way past what I > think is reasonable. > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-FSYNC > > There are dire-sounding statements interspersed with: > > | using fsync results in a performance penalty > > | Due to the risks involved, there is no universally correct setting > | for fsync. > > | If you trust your operating system, your hardware, and your > | utility company (or your battery backup), you can consider > | disabling fsync. > > Isn't this a little too rosy a picture to paint? I agree. I've always thought this part of the documentation made setting fsync=off much more reasonable than I feel it to be. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 16:00, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Kevin Grittner > <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: >> Someone just posted to the -admin list with a database corrupted >> while running with fsync=off. I was all set to refer him to the >> documentation explaining why he should stop doing this, but to my >> surprise the documentation waffles on the issue way past what I >> think is reasonable. >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-FSYNC >> >> There are dire-sounding statements interspersed with: >> >> | using fsync results in a performance penalty >> >> | Due to the risks involved, there is no universally correct setting >> | for fsync. >> >> | If you trust your operating system, your hardware, and your >> | utility company (or your battery backup), you can consider >> | disabling fsync. >> >> Isn't this a little too rosy a picture to paint? > > I agree. I've always thought this part of the documentation made > setting fsync=off much more reasonable than I feel it to be. +1, definitely. fsync=off should only be done if you *really* understand what it means, and that requires a lot more explanation than that... -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> | If you trust your operating system, your hardware, and your
> | utility company (or your battery backup), you can consider
> | disabling fsync.
> Isn't this a little too rosy a picture to paint?
I think that statement is true as far as it goes, but I agree with
rejiggering the surrounding text. The whole thing was written back
when Postgres was by far the least reliable component of the stack.
It isn't anymore. We should make it clear that fsync=off is not ever
recommended for production.
regards, tom lane
Kevin Grittner wrote: > > There are dire-sounding statements interspersed with: > > | using fsync results in a performance penalty > > | Due to the risks involved, there is no universally correct setting > | for fsync. > > | If you trust your operating system, your hardware, and your > | utility company (or your battery backup), you can consider > | disabling fsync. > > Isn't this a little too rosy a picture to paint? > > > I think the critical question is really whether you are prepared to lose your database. I have a customer who rotates databases in and out of line, and processes major updates on the out of line database. If they lose the database occasionally they are prepared to wear that risk for the performance gain they get from running with fsync off. It just means that they have to recover and so the inline database will get a bit staler than usual while they do. So I think its true that there is no universally right answer. Maybe the criteria mentioned in the last para need tweaking some, though. It's not just a matter of trusting hardware etc. I have seen mishaps when idiots knock out power cords and the like. The unexpected does sometime happen, despite the best planning. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > I think the critical question is really whether you are prepared > to lose your database. Precisely; and the docs don't make that at all clear. They mention the possibility of database corruption, but downplay it: | When fsync is disabled, the operating system is allowed to do its | best in buffering, ordering, and delaying writes. This can result | in significantly improved performance. However, if the system | crashes, the results of the last few committed transactions might | be lost in part or whole. In the worst case, unrecoverable data | corruption might occur. > [valid use case for fsync=off] > > So I think its true that there is no universally right answer. > Maybe the criteria mentioned in the last para need tweaking some, > though. I think it goes beyond "tweaking" -- I think we should have a bald statement like "don't turn this off unless you're OK with losing the entire contents of the database cluster." A brief listing of some cases where that is OK might be illustrative. I never meant to suggest any statement in that section is factually wrong; it's just all too rosy, leading people to believe it's no big deal to turn it off. -Kevin
> I never meant to suggest any statement in that section is factually
> wrong; it's just all too rosy, leading people to believe it's no big
> deal to turn it off.
Yeah, that section is overdue for an update. I'll write some new text
and post it to pgsql-docs.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
--On 7. Mai 2010 09:48:53 -0500 Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > I think it goes beyond "tweaking" -- I think we should have a bald > statement like "don't turn this off unless you're OK with losing the > entire contents of the database cluster." A brief listing of some > cases where that is OK might be illustrative. > +1 > I never meant to suggest any statement in that section is factually > wrong; it's just all too rosy, leading people to believe it's no big > deal to turn it off. I think one mistake in this paragraph is the passing mention of "performance". I've seen installations in the past with fsync=off only because the admin was pressured to get instantly "more speed" out of the database (think of "fast_mode=on"). In my opinion, phrases like "performance penalty" are misleading, if you need that setting in 99% of all use cases for reliable operation. I've recently even started to wonder if the performance gain with fsync=off is still that large on modern hardware. While testing large migration procedures to a new version some time ago (on an admitedly fast storage) i forgot here and then to turn it off, without a significant degradation in performance. -- Thanks Bernd
Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> writes:
> I've recently even started to wonder if the performance gain with fsync=off
> is still that large on modern hardware. While testing large migration
> procedures to a new version some time ago (on an admitedly fast storage) i
> forgot here and then to turn it off, without a significant degradation in
> performance.
That says to me either that you're using a battery-backed write cache,
or your fsyncs don't really work (no write barriers or something like
that).
regards, tom lane
--On 7. Mai 2010 19:49:15 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> writes: >> I've recently even started to wonder if the performance gain with >> fsync=off is still that large on modern hardware. While testing large >> migration procedures to a new version some time ago (on an admitedly >> fast storage) i forgot here and then to turn it off, without a >> significant degradation in performance. > > That says to me either that you're using a battery-backed write cache, > or your fsyncs don't really work (no write barriers or something like > that). > Well, yes, BBU present and proven storage. Maybe i'm wrong, but it seems battery backed write caches aren't that seldom even in low end systems nowadays. -- Thanks Bernd
On 8/05/2010 1:56 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> I never meant to suggest any statement in that section is factually >> wrong; it's just all too rosy, leading people to believe it's no big >> deal to turn it off. > > Yeah, that section is overdue for an update. I'll write some new text > and post it to pgsql-docs. It's probably worth mentioning that people who want to turn off fsync to gain a performance boost should instead look at a RAID controller with a BBU so they can safely enable write-back caching, getting most of the benefits of fsync=off safely. -- Craig Ringer
On 05/08/2010 04:07 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > It's probably worth mentioning that people who want to turn off fsync to > gain a performance boost should instead look at a RAID controller with a > BBU so they can safely enable write-back caching, getting most of the > benefits of fsync=off safely. Which options specifically should be set if a BBU is in use? Obviously fsync should be on always, but can full_page_writes be disabled? Are there other tweaks that can be done? It would be great to see some practical hints in the documentation while the fsync part is getting changed. -- m. tharp
Michael Tharp wrote: > On 05/08/2010 04:07 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > It's probably worth mentioning that people who want to turn off fsync to > > gain a performance boost should instead look at a RAID controller with a > > BBU so they can safely enable write-back caching, getting most of the > > benefits of fsync=off safely. > > Which options specifically should be set if a BBU is in use? Obviously > fsync should be on always, but can full_page_writes be disabled? Are > there other tweaks that can be done? > > It would be great to see some practical hints in the documentation while > the fsync part is getting changed. Uh, our docs have: Turning this parameter off speeds normal operation, but mightlead to a corrupt database after an operating system crash orpowerfailure. The risks are similar to turning off<varname>fsync</>, though smaller. It might be safe to turnoff thisparameter if you have hardware (such as a battery-backeddisk controller) or file-system software that reduces the riskofpartial page writes to an acceptably low level (e.g., ZFS). -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Michael Tharp wrote: >> On 05/08/2010 04:07 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> > It's probably worth mentioning that people who want to turn off fsync to >> > gain a performance boost should instead look at a RAID controller with a >> > BBU so they can safely enable write-back caching, getting most of the >> > benefits of fsync=off safely. >> >> Which options specifically should be set if a BBU is in use? Obviously >> fsync should be on always, but can full_page_writes be disabled? Are >> there other tweaks that can be done? >> >> It would be great to see some practical hints in the documentation while >> the fsync part is getting changed. > > Uh, our docs have: > > Turning this parameter off speeds normal operation, but might > lead to a corrupt database after an operating system crash or > power failure. The risks are similar to turning off > <varname>fsync</>, though smaller. It might be safe to turn > off this parameter 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 (e.g., ZFS). "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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > Michael Tharp wrote: > >> On 05/08/2010 04:07 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> > It's probably worth mentioning that people who want to turn off fsync to > >> > gain a performance boost should instead look at a RAID controller with a > >> > BBU so they can safely enable write-back caching, getting most of the > >> > benefits of fsync=off safely. > >> > >> Which options specifically should be set if a BBU is in use? Obviously > >> fsync should be on always, but can full_page_writes be disabled? Are > >> there other tweaks that can be done? > >> > >> It would be great to see some practical hints in the documentation while > >> the fsync part is getting changed. > > > > Uh, our docs have: > > > > ? ? ? ?Turning this parameter off speeds normal operation, but might > > ? ? ? ?lead to a corrupt database after an operating system crash or > > ? ? ? ?power failure. The risks are similar to turning off > > ? ? ? ?<varname>fsync</>, though smaller. ?It might be safe to turn > > ? ? ? ?off this parameter 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 (e.g., ZFS). > > "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. Agreed. It is "safe" for us to be definitive here? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> 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? -Kevin
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> 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. -- greg
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 18:46 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Kevin Grittner > <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> 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
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > 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. Perhaps Josh's language for fsync could be modified to work here (we're now talking about full_page_writes, for anyone who's lost track): | it is only advisable to turn off fsync if you can easily recreate | your entire database from external data. That covers bulk loads to an empty or just-backed-up database and entirely redundant databases. Saying it should never be turned off would tend to make one wonder why we have the setting at all. -Kevin
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Perhaps Josh's language for fsync could be modified to work here
> (we're now talking about full_page_writes, for anyone who's lost
> track):
> | it is only advisable to turn off fsync if you can easily recreate
> | your entire database from external data.
> That covers bulk loads to an empty or just-backed-up database and
> entirely redundant databases. Saying it should never be turned off
> would tend to make one wonder why we have the setting at all.
+1. Perhaps for both of them, we should specify that the intended
use-case is for improving performance during initial database load
and similar cases.
regards, tom lane
2010/5/8 Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>: > > > --On 7. Mai 2010 09:48:53 -0500 Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> > wrote: > >> I think it goes beyond "tweaking" -- I think we should have a bald >> statement like "don't turn this off unless you're OK with losing the >> entire contents of the database cluster." A brief listing of some >> cases where that is OK might be illustrative. >> > > +1 > >> I never meant to suggest any statement in that section is factually >> wrong; it's just all too rosy, leading people to believe it's no big >> deal to turn it off. > > I think one mistake in this paragraph is the passing mention of > "performance". I've seen installations in the past with fsync=off only > because the admin was pressured to get instantly "more speed" out of the > database (think of "fast_mode=on"). In my opinion, phrases like "performance > penalty" are misleading, if you need that setting in 99% of all use cases > for reliable operation. > > I've recently even started to wonder if the performance gain with fsync=off > is still that large on modern hardware. While testing large migration > procedures to a new version some time ago (on an admitedly fast storage) i > forgot here and then to turn it off, without a significant degradation in > performance. On a recent pg_restore -j 32, with perc 6i with BBU, RAID10 8 hd, results were not so bas with fsync turn on. (XFS with nobarrier su and sw) -- deactivate fsync time pg_restore -U postgres -d foodb -j 32 foo.psql real 170m0.527s user 43m12.914s sys 1m56.499s -- activate fsync time pg_restore -U postgres -d foodb -j 32 foo.psql real 177m0.121s user 42m54.581s sys 2m0.452s > > > -- > Thanks > > Bernd > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Cédric Villemain
All,
Updated docs based on tracking this discussion. fsync through full page
writes recorded below.
============
<varlistentry id="guc-fsync" xreflabel="fsync"> <indexterm> <primary><varname>fsync</> configuration
parameter</primary> </indexterm> <term><varname>fsync</varname> (<type>boolean</type>)</term> <listitem>
<para> If this parameter is on, the <productname>PostgreSQL</> server will try to make sure that updates
arephysically written to disk, by issuing <function>fsync()</> system calls or various equivalent methods
(see<xref linkend="guc-wal-sync-method">). This ensures that the database cluster can recover to a
consistentstate after an operating system or hardware crash. </para>
<para> While turning off <varname>fsync</varname> is often a performance benefit, this can result in
unrecoverabledata corruption in the
event of an unexpected system shutdown or crash. Thus it is only
advisable to turn off <varname>fsync</varname> if you can easily recreate your entire database from
externaldata. </para>
<para>Examples of safe times to turn off <varname>fsync</varname> would be when initially loading a new
databasefrom a backup file, on a
database which isonly used for processing statistics on an hourly basis and is then
deleted, or on a reporting read-only clone of your database which gets
recreated very night and is not used for failover. High quality hardware alone
is not a sufficient justification for turning off <varname>fsync</varname>. </para>
<para> In many situations, turning off <xref
linkend="guc-synchronous-commit"> for noncritical transactions can provide much of the potential
performancebenefit of turning off <varname>fsync</varname>, without the attendant risks of data corruption.
</para>
<para> <varname>fsync</varname> can only be set in the
<filename>postgresql.conf</> file or on the server command line. If you turn this parameter off, also
considerturning off <xref linkend="guc-full-page-writes">. </para> </listitem> </varlistentry>
<varlistentry id="guc-synchronous-commit"
xreflabel="synchronous_commit"> <term><varname>synchronous_commit</varname>
(<type>boolean</type>)</term> <indexterm> <primary><varname>synchronous_commit</> configuration
parameter</primary> </indexterm> <listitem> <para> Specifies whether transaction commit will wait
forWAL records to be written to disk before the command returns a <quote>success</> indication to the
client. The default, and safe, setting is <literal>on</>. When <literal>off</>, there can be a delay between
when success is reported to the client and when the transaction is really guaranteed to be safe against a server
crash. (The maximum delay is three times <xref linkend="guc-wal-writer-delay">.) Unlike <xref
linkend="guc-fsync">,setting this parameter to
<literal>off</> does not create any risk of database inconsistency: a crash might result in some recent
allegedly-committedtransactions being
lost, but the database state will be just the same as if those
transactions had been aborted cleanly. So, turning
<varname>synchronous_commit</> off can be a useful alternative when performance is more important than
exactcertainty about the durability of a transaction. For more discussion see <xref linkend="wal-async-commit">.
</para> <para> This parameter can be changed at any time; the behavior for any one transaction is
determinedby the setting in effect when it commits. It is therefore possible, and useful, to have some
transactionscommit synchronously and others asynchronously. For example, to make a single multi-statement
transactioncommit asynchronously when the default is the opposite, issue <command>SET LOCAL
synchronous_commitTO OFF</> within the transaction. </para> </listitem> </varlistentry>
<varlistentry id="guc-wal-sync-method" xreflabel="wal_sync_method"> <term><varname>wal_sync_method</varname>
(<type>enum</type>)</term> <indexterm> <primary><varname>wal_sync_method</> configuration
parameter</primary> </indexterm> <listitem> <para> Method used for forcing WAL updates out to disk.
If <varname>fsync</varname> is off then this setting is irrelevant, since WAL file updates will not be forced
outat all. Possible values are: </para> <itemizedlist> <listitem> <para>
<literal>open_datasync</>(write WAL files with
<function>open()</> option <symbol>O_DSYNC</>) </para> </listitem> <listitem> <para>
<literal>fdatasync</>(call <function>fdatasync()</> at each
commit) </para> </listitem> <listitem> <para> <literal>fsync_writethrough</> (call
<function>fsync()</>at
each commit, forcing write-through of any disk write cache) </para> </listitem> <listitem>
<para> <literal>fsync</> (call <function>fsync()</> at each commit) </para> </listitem>
<listitem> <para> <literal>open_sync</> (write WAL files with <function>open()</>
option <symbol>O_SYNC</>) </para> </listitem> </itemizedlist> <para> Not all of these
choicesare available on all platforms. The default is the first method in the above list that is supported
bythe platform. The <literal>open_</>* options also use <literal>O_DIRECT</> if
available. The utility <filename>src/tools/fsync</> in the PostgreSQL
source tree can do performance testing of various fsync methods. This parameter can only be set in the
<filename>postgresql.conf</> file or on the server command line. </para> </listitem> </varlistentry>
<varlistentry id="guc-full-page-writes" xreflabel="full_page_writes"> <indexterm>
<primary><varname>full_page_writes</>configuration
parameter</primary> </indexterm> <term><varname>full_page_writes</varname>
(<type>boolean</type>)</term> <listitem> <para> When this parameter is on, the
<productname>PostgreSQL</>server writes the entire content of each disk page to WAL during the first
modificationof that page after a checkpoint. This is needed because a page write that is in process during
anoperating system crash
might be only partially completed, leading to an on-disk page that contains a mix of old and new data. The
row-levelchange data normally stored in WAL will not be enough to completely restore such a page during
post-crashrecovery. Storing the full page image guarantees that the page can be correctly restored, but at the
price of increasing the amount of data that must be written to WAL. (Because WAL replay always starts from a
checkpoint,it is
sufficient to do this during the first change of each page after a checkpoint. Therefore, one way to reduce
thecost of full-page writes is to increase the checkpoint interval parameters.) </para>
<para> Turning this parameter off speeds normal operation, but might lead to either unrecoverable
datacorruption, or silent data corruption, after a system failure. The risks are similar
to turning off <varname>fsync</varname>, though smaller, and it should be
turned off only based on the same circumstances recommended for that parameter. </para>
<para> Turning off this parameter does not affect use of WAL archiving for point-in-time recovery
(PITR) (see <xref linkend="continuous-archiving">). </para>
<para> This parameter can only be set in the <filename>postgresql.conf</> file or on the server
commandline. The default is <literal>on</>. </para> </listitem> </varlistentry>
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
Cédric Villemain<cedric.villemain.debian@gmail.com> wrote: > On a recent pg_restore -j 32, with perc 6i with BBU, RAID10 8 hd, > results were not so bas with fsync turn on. (XFS with nobarrier su > and sw) > -- deactivate fsync > time pg_restore -U postgres -d foodb -j 32 foo.psql > real 170m0.527s > user 43m12.914s > sys 1m56.499s > -- activate fsync > time pg_restore -U postgres -d foodb -j 32 foo.psql > real 177m0.121s > user 42m54.581s > sys 2m0.452s Wow. In a situation where you save seven minutes (4%), it's hardly worth turning off. -Kevin
> Wow. In a situation where you save seven minutes (4%), it's hardly
> worth turning off.
I've had it be much higher, especially for really large databases.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 01:35:32PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > deleted, > or on a reporting read-only clone of your database which gets > recreated very > night and is not used for failover. High quality hardware alone s/very/every/ or s/very night/periodically/ Ross -- Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reedstrm@rice.edu Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166 The Connexions Project http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665 Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005 GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE
Josh Berkus wrote: >> Wow. In a situation where you save seven minutes (4%), it's hardly >> worth turning off. >> > > I've had it be much higher, especially for really large databases. > Cedric's system had a non-volatile write cache in it. In that case, a few percentage points of improvement is normal--the overhead of fsync is very low. In the case where you don't have one of those, and the write cache on the drives are turned off for safety too, I've seen turning fsync off be a 40X speedup--100 inserts/second jumping to 4000TPS. (This was before synchronous_commit). The real question is how much of a speed-up fsync provides compared to the same workload with synchronous_commit disabled. The only case for fsync=off is one where that number is much faster. That's the case on some low-level operations (I seem to recall there is no async commit speedup for CREATE DATABASE for example). But for most of what people want to speed, just killing sync commit while keeping fsync is on is good enough. I suspect there are still some bulk-load workloads where fsync=off helps beyond just going for async commit, but they're tougher to find and the difference isn't huge relative to total load times. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
> The real question is how much of a speed-up fsync provides compared to
> the same workload with synchronous_commit disabled. The only case for
> fsync=off is one where that number is much faster.
I can't say I've tested this. Most of my head-to-heads on fsync were
before asych existed.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On 5/10/10 2:21 PM, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 01:35:32PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> deleted,
>> or on a reporting read-only clone of your database which gets
>> recreated very
>> night and is not used for failover. High quality hardware alone
>
> s/very/every/
> or
> s/very night/periodically/
"frequently" I think. Periodically could mean once a year.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
Josh Berkus wrote: >> The real question is how much of a speed-up fsync provides compared to >> the same workload with synchronous_commit disabled. The only case for >> fsync=off is one where that number is much faster. >> > I can't say I've tested this. Most of my head-to-heads on fsync were > before asych existed. > Ditto for me. Curious about that, and I'd like to help work on improving this chunk of the docs too. I don't know about you guys, but I'm swamped until after PGCon though. I have some hardware testing stuff planned anyway later this month, can check exactly where this situation truly stands on a couple of common pieces of hardware (next system has one of the LSI controllers Dell rebrands too). I'll have the systems setup for something similar anyway--can certainly see fsync differences with pgbench--easy to throw this test into the mix too. With that report, we should have the info needed to really nail this down accurately. I can make my own proofreading pass of what Josh has already been doing that also reflects the new data, and then we can commit something that's good and well reviewed for 9.0 here. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 18:46 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Kevin Grittner > <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> 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
Kevin Grittner wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > >> 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. >> > > Perhaps Josh's language for fsync could be modified to work here > (we're now talking about full_page_writes, for anyone who's lost > track): > > | it is only advisable to turn off fsync if you can easily recreate > | your entire database from external data. > > That covers bulk loads to an empty or just-backed-up database and > entirely redundant databases. Saying it should never be turned off > would tend to make one wonder why we have the setting at all. > Would the term "entirely redundant databases" include (synchronously) replicated databases? (ps: I did indeed lose track about whether this is about fsync or full_page_writes and did not get on the track again) regards, Yeb Havinga
Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > Updated docs based on tracking this discussion. fsync through full page > writes recorded below. I have applied this doc update with the attached patch. I added the change from "every night" to "frequently", and reworded it slightly so it was clear it affects the entire cluster, not just a single database. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com Index: doc/src/sgml/config.sgml =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml,v retrieving revision 1.279 diff -c -c -r1.279 config.sgml *** doc/src/sgml/config.sgml 26 May 2010 23:49:18 -0000 1.279 --- doc/src/sgml/config.sgml 31 May 2010 15:44:36 -0000 *************** *** 1413,1446 **** </para> <para> ! However, using <varname>fsync</varname> results in a ! performance penalty: when a transaction is committed, ! <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> must wait for the ! operating system to flush the write-ahead log to disk. When ! <varname>fsync</varname> is disabled, the operating system is ! allowed to do its best in buffering, ordering, and delaying ! writes. This can result in significantly improved performance. ! However, if the system crashes, the results of the last few ! committed transactions might be completely lost, or worse, ! might appear partially committed, leaving the database in an ! inconsistent state. In the ! worst case, unrecoverable data corruption might occur. ! (Crashes of the database software itself are <emphasis>not</> ! a risk factor here. Only an operating-system-level crash ! creates a risk of corruption.) </para> <para> ! Due to the risks involved, there is no universally correct ! setting for <varname>fsync</varname>. Some administrators ! always disable <varname>fsync</varname>, while others only ! turn it off during initial bulk data loads, where there is a clear ! restart point if something goes wrong. Others ! always leave <varname>fsync</varname> enabled. The default is ! to enable <varname>fsync</varname>, for maximum reliability. ! If you trust your operating system, your hardware, and your ! utility company (or your battery backup), you can consider ! disabling <varname>fsync</varname>. </para> <para> --- 1413,1435 ---- </para> <para> ! While turning off <varname>fsync</varname> is often a performance ! benefit, this can result in unrecoverable data corruption in ! the event of an unexpected system shutdown or crash. Thus it ! is only advisable to turn off <varname>fsync</varname> if ! you can easily recreate your entire database from external ! data. </para> <para> ! Examples of safe circumstances for turning off ! <varname>fsync</varname> include the initial loading a new ! database cluster from a backup file, using a database cluster ! for processing statistics on an hourly basis which is then ! recreated, or for a reporting read-only database clone which ! gets recreated frequently and is not used for failover. High ! quality hardware alone is not a sufficient justification for ! turning off <varname>fsync</varname>. </para> <para> *************** *** 1572,1583 **** <para> Turning this parameter off speeds normal operation, but ! might lead to a corrupt database after an operating system crash ! or power failure. The risks are similar to turning off ! <varname>fsync</>, though smaller. It might be safe to turn off ! this parameter 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 (e.g., ZFS). </para> <para> --- 1561,1570 ---- <para> Turning this parameter off speeds normal operation, but ! might lead to either unrecoverable data corruption, or silent ! data corruption, after a system failure. The risks are similar to turning off ! <varname>fsync</varname>, though smaller, and it should be turned off ! only based on the same circumstances recommended for that parameter. </para> <para>