Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test

On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 17:18, Rick Gigger wrote:
> ahhh. "lies about write order" is the phrase that I was looking for. That
> seemed to make sense but I didn't know if I could go directly from "lying
> about fsync" to that. Obviously I don't understand exactly what fsync is
> doing. I assume this means that if you were to turn fsync off you would get
> considerably better performance but introduce the possibility of corrupting
> the files in your database.

Yes.

There was a recent thread (in -general or -performance) regarding
putting the WAL files on a different disk, and changing wal_sync_-
method to open_sync (or open_datasync, don't remember).

This will allow the device(s) that the database is on to
run asynchronously, while the WAL is synchronous, for safety.

> Thank you. This makes a lot more sense now.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> To: "Rick Gigger" <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com>
> Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SCSI vs. IDE performance test
>
>
> > "Rick Gigger" <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com> writes:
> > > It seems to me file system journaling should fix the whole problem by
> giving
> > > you a record of what was actually commited to disk and what was not.
> >
> > Nope, a journaling FS has exactly the same problem Postgres does
> > (because the underlying "WAL" concept is the same: write the log entries
> > before you change the files they describe). If the drive lies about
> > write order, the FS can be screwed just as badly. Now the FS code might
> > have a low-level way to force write order that Postgres doesn't have
> > access to ... but simply uttering the magic incantation "journaling file
> > system" will not make this problem disappear.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net
Jefferson, LA USA

Some former UNSCOM officials are alarmed, however. Terry Taylor,
a British senior UNSCOM inspector from 1993 to 1997, says the
figure of 95 percent disarmament is "complete nonsense because
inspectors never learned what 100 percent was. UNSCOM found a
great deal and destroyed a great deal, but we knew [Iraq's] work
was continuing while we were there, and I'm sure it continues,"
says Mr. Taylor, now head of the Washington
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0829/p01s03-wosc.html