Re: Can we trust fsync?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Can we trust fsync?
Date: 2013-11-21 02:13:11
Message-ID: 528D6C37.1090201@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 11/20/2013 03:45 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> I'm really concerned by this post on Linux's fsync and disk flush behaviour:
>
> http://milek.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/linux-osync-and-write-barriers.html
>
> and seeking opinions from folks here who've been deeply involved in
> write reliability work.
>
> The amount of change in write reliablity behaviour in Linux across
> kernel versions, file systems and storage abstraction layers is worrying
> - different results for LVM vs !LVM, md vs !md, ext3 vs other, etc.
>
> If this isn't something that's already been seen and dealt with then
> I'll see if I can take a look into it once the RLS work is dealt with.
>

I thought Greg did some testing on this a while back and determined
which versions were safe... (/me looks for post)

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Asit Mahato 2013-11-21 02:14:19 noob's query
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2013-11-21 02:11:55 Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs