From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Adrian Klaver <aklaver(at)comcast(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Sanjay Arora <sanjay(dot)k(dot)arora(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Harald Armin Massa[legacy]" <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: postgreSQL & amazon ec2 cloud |
Date: | 2009-03-19 18:04:05 |
Message-ID: | 49C28915.9070608@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Adrian Klaver <aklaver(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
>> Nothing. I have created a Postgres instance on an EC2 virtual machine with
>> attached EBS(Elastic Block Storage)..[...]
>
> ... I wonder whether you have any guarantees about database consistency
> in that situation? PG has some pretty strong requirements about fsync
While I agree it shouldn't be taken on faith, their documentation
does take the time to point out that syncing of I/O's is pretty
expensive operation (even literally - they charge extra for individual
i/o operations and point out that those increase with syncs).
http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/
I have a couple databases there, and based on the rather high I/O-wait
times on their cheapest ($0.10/hr) instances, I'm wildly guessing that
they're doing something reasonable for sync :-). Their higher priced
instances supposedly have better I/O performance.
> behavior etc, and I'd not want to take it on faith that a cloud
> environment will meet those requirements.
That said, even apart from any SLA of fsync itself, I imagine there's
a concern that an entire hosted cloud might vanish for any number of
reasons.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2009-03-19 18:10:13 | array_agg and libpq(xx) |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2009-03-19 17:45:19 | Re: variable |