From: | "Ram Ravichandran" <ramkaka(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org(dot) |
Subject: | turning fsync off for WAL |
Date: | 2008-06-03 00:12:51 |
Message-ID: | c8cd6fbb0806021712g6659919cjfc84a092ec7e9c3f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hey,
I am running a postgresql server on Amazon EC2. My current plan is to mount
an Amazon S3 bucket as a drive using PersistentFS which is a POSIX-compliant
file system.
I will be using this for write-ahead-logging. The issue with S3 is that
though the actual storage is cheap, they charge $1 per 100,000 put requests
- so frequent fsyncs will
cost me a lot.
I've been talking to the makers of persistentFS, and one possible solution
is for the file system to disobey fsyncs. I am trying to find out the
implications of this method in
case of a crash. Will I only lose information since the last fsync? Or will
the earlier data, in general, be corrupted due to some out-of-order writes
(I remember seeing this somewhere)?
Thanks,
Ram
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2008-06-03 00:19:57 | Re: Maintaining an index on a large table: Is there any potential for it to stall my application? |
Previous Message | John Cieslewicz | 2008-06-02 22:10:02 | Re: Forcing Postgres to Execute a Specific Plan |