Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F937634128 for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 19:04:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45063-04 for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 22:04:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87137632F53 for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 19:04:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.130] ([24.114.252.242]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Mefy0-1NvU353VGK-00Otma; Fri, 21 May 2010 00:04:24 +0200 Message-ID: <4BF5B1E6.1020701@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 18:04:22 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Krogh CC: Balkrishna Sharma , scott.marlowe@gmail.com, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server crash References: , , , <4BF59CAC.9040200@krogh.cc> In-Reply-To: <4BF59CAC.9040200@krogh.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18/1MSx5vUAQJaqgrW2MY85O0ziLPvni6ewueD InIjpR/G/tr4tTPVGR3GIxSmhk+LCvE0EeKdmZ3TGCubQCE9A5 m5emVvXD8L2sAGHwj+Vt2/oqT5G2B7V X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.13 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201005/205 X-Sequence-Number: 34678 Jesper Krogh wrote: > A Battery Backed raid controller is not that expensive. (in the range > of 1 or 2 SSD disks). > And it is (more or less) a silverbullet to the task you describe. Maybe even less; in order to get a SSD that's reliable at all in terms of good crash recovery, you have buy a fairly expensive one. Also, and this is really important, you really don't want to deploy onto a single SSD and put critical system files there. Their failure rates are not that low. You need to put them into a RAID-1 setup and budget for two of them, which brings you right back to Also, it's questionable whether a SSD is even going to be faster than standard disks for the sequential WAL writes anyway, once a non-volatile write cache is available. Sequential writes to SSD are the area where the gap in performance between them and spinning disks is the smallest. > Plugging your system (SSD's) with an UPS and trusting it fully > could solve most of the problems (running in writeback mode). UPS batteries fail, and people accidentally knock out over server power cords. It's a pretty bad server that can't survive someone tripping over the cord while it's busy, and that's the situation the "use a UPS" idea doesn't improve. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us