Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method

From: Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>
To: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method
Date: 2005-08-09 09:25:36
Message-ID: 20050809092536.GB23031@l-t.ee
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:08:25AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> That can definitly be debated. Properly maintaned on proper hardware,
> it's quite reliable these days.
> Most filesystem corruptions that happen on windows are because people
> enable write caching on drives without battery backup. The same issue
> we're facing here, it's *not* a problem in the fs, it's a problem in the
> admin. Sure, there are lots of things that could be better with ntfs,
> but I would definitly not call it unreliable.

People enable? Isn't it the default?

> > 3. The probability of mediocre hardware is higher.
>
> I would say it's actually *lower*. If you look in the average
> datacenter, I bet you'll find a lot more linux boxes running on
> built-at-home-with-the-cheapest-parts boxes. Whereas your windows boxes
> will run on HP or IBM or whatever real server-grade hardware.
>
> I don't know anybody who claims to run a professional business who uses
> IDE drives in a Windows server, for example. I know several who run
> linux or freebsd on it.

The professional probably tests it on his own desktop. I don't
think PostgreSQL reaches the data center before passing the run
on desktop.

> > Regular POSIX:
> > 1. We can't write through cache.
> > 2. We have good OS with good filesystem (probably even
> > journaled).
>
> NTFS is journaled, BTW. And I've seen a lot more corruption on ext2,
> extr3 or reiser than I'ev seen on NTFS in my datacenter - and I have
> about 5 times more Windows server than linux...
> Granted other unixen might be more stable, I don't run any of those..
>
> > 3. The probably of mediocre hardware is lower.
>
> See above.

Ok, comparing impressions is not productive.

> > Why shouldn't we offer reliable option to win32?
>
> *we do offer a reliabel option*.
> Same as on POSIX, we don't enable it by default for *non-server
> hardware*.

What do you mean here? AFAIK we try to be reliable on POSIX too.

> > Options:
> >
> > - Win32 guy complains that PG is bit slow.
> > We tell him to RTFM.
>
> What most often happens here is:
> Win32 guy notices PG is very slow, changes to mysql or mssql.

But lost database is no problem?

--
marko

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2005-08-09 10:14:09 Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2005-08-09 09:19:55 Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method