From: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Javier Somoza <jsomoza@pandasoftware.es>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Tino Wildenhain <tino@wildenhain.de>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: fsync and battery-backed caches
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:09:25 -0600
Message-ID: <20060228210925.GX82012@pervasive.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1141147654.1555.46.camel@pndsoft>
References: <200602280106.k1S16DK16068@candle.pha.pa.us>
<1141114775.1555.7.camel@pndsoft>
<20060228172334.GV82012@pervasive.com>
<1141147654.1555.46.camel@pndsoft>
Ok, you absolutely can't guarantee you won't get partial page writes
then. A UPS buys you no more data safety than being plugged directly
into the wall. UPS's fail. People trip over cords. Breakers fail. Even
if you have multiple power supplies on multiple circuits fed by
different UPS's you can *still* have unexpected power failures. The
'master' for distributed.net had exactly that happen recently; the two
breakers feeding it (from 2 seperate UPS's) failed simultaneously.
In a nutshell, having a server on a UPS is notthing at all like having a
BBU on the raid controller: commiting to the BBU is essentially the same
as committing to the drives, unless the BBU runs out of power before the
server has power restored, or fails in some similar fasion. But because
there's many fewer parts involved, such a failure of the BBU is far less
likely than a failure up-stream.
So, if you want performance, get a controller with a BBU and allow it to
cache writes. While you're at it, try and get one that will
automatically disable write caching if the BBU fails for some reason.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:27:34PM +0100, Javier Somoza wrote:
>
> Ups sorry.
>
>
> > Actually, you can't assume that a BBU means you can safely disable
> > full-page-writes. Depending on the controller, it's still possible to
> > end up with partially written pages.
> >
> > BTW, if your mailer makes doing so convenient, it would be nice to trim
> > down your .signature; note that it's about 3x longer than the email you
> > actually sent.
>
>
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: jnasby@pervasive.com, jsomoza@pandasoftware.es, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, tino@wildenhain.de
Subject: Re: fsync and battery-backed caches
In-Reply-To: <20060228210925.GX82012@pervasive.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox