Re: Addled index

On 17 March 2013 08:30, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Oleg Alexeev <oalexeev(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > * it is varchar columns, 256 and 32 symbols length
> > * encoding, collation and ctype: UTF8, en_US.utf8, en_US.utf8
> > * autovacuum, fsync off, full_page_writes = on, wal_writer_delay = 500ms,
> > commit_delay = 100, commit_siblings = 10, checkpoint_timeout = 20min,
> > checkpoint_completion_target = 0.7
> > * postgres 9.2.3 installed via yum repository for version 9.2
> > * 64 bit Centos 6, installed and updated from yum repository
>
> fsync off? Have you had any power failures or other system crashes?
> ext4 is *way* more prone than ext3 was to corrupt data when fsync is
> disabled, because it caches and reorders writes much more aggressively.
>
> > Database located on software md raid 1 based on two SSD disks array. Ext4
> > filesystem. Database is master node.
>
> Meh. I quote from the RHEL6 documentation (Storage Administration
> Guide, Chapter 20: Solid-State Disk Deployment Guidelines):
>
> > Red Hat also warns that software RAID levels 1, 4, 5, and 6 are not
> > recommended for use on SSDs.
>
>
> https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Storage_Administration_Guide/newmds-ssdtuning.html
>
> The part of the docs I'm looking at only asserts that performance is
> bad, but considering that it's a deprecated combination, it may well be
> that there are data-loss bugs in there. I'd certainly suggest making
> sure you are on a *recent* kernel. If that doesn't help, reconsider
> your filesystem choices.
>
> (Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat, but not in the filesystem group,
> so I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about. But I have the
> feeling you have chosen a configuration that's pretty bleeding-edge
> for RHEL6.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>

I think fsync=off was really bad idea.

--
Oleg V Alexeev
E:oalexeev(at)gmail(dot)com