Re: how unsafe (or worst scenarios) when setting fsync OFF for postgresql

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: guoping(dot)zhang(at)nec(dot)com(dot)au
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Guoping Zhang (E-mail)" <guopingz(at)nstc(dot)nec(dot)com(dot)au>
Subject: Re: how unsafe (or worst scenarios) when setting fsync OFF for postgresql
Date: 2006-04-27 14:53:28
Message-ID: 11093.1146149608@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Guoping Zhang" <guoping(dot)zhang(at)nec(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Our application has a strict speed requirement for DB operation. Our tests
> show that it takes about 10secs for the operation when setting fsync off,
> but takes about 70 seconds when setting fsync ON (with other WAL related
> parametered tuned).

I can't believe that a properly tuned application would have an fsync
penalty that large. Are you performing that "operation" as several
thousand small transactions, or some such? Try grouping the operations
into one (or at most a few) transactions. Also, what wal_buffers and
wal_sync_method settings are you using, and have you experimented with
alternatives? What sort of platform is this on? What PG version?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-04-27 14:57:46 Re: how unsafe (or worst scenarios) when setting fsync
Previous Message Alex Hayward 2006-04-27 14:05:10 Re: Hardware: HP StorageWorks MSA 1500