From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Rick Otten <rotten@manta.com>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: New server setup
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:55:08 -0400
Message-ID: <20130315185508.GA17688@momjian.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7A1B720615F7D9458BE37FA699EF0794044D8C@cmhvm033.ecnext03.local>
References: <4D6D1410-2208-4DAA-BD64-69BE1FD94E55@autouncle.com>
<513CADB7.4030803@2ndQuadrant.com>
<CAJY59_jNGwrPceXg8k04=1VWTTZTFTPTh+jGHopx92c+17Cj1w@mail.gmail.com>
<20130314185424.GA28770@momjian.us>
<51424333.608@catalyst.net.nz>
<20130314223449.GE28770@momjian.us>
<7A1B720615F7D9458BE37FA699EF0794044D8C@cmhvm033.ecnext03.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 06:06:02PM +0000, Rick Otten wrote:
> >I don't think any drive that corrupts on power-off is suitable for a
> >database, but for non-db uses, sure, I guess they are OK, though you
> >have to be pretty money->constrainted to like that tradeoff.
>
> Wouldn't mission critical databases normally be configured in a high
> availability cluster - presumably with replicas running on different
> power sources?
>
> If you lose power to a member of the cluster (or even the master), you
> would have new data coming in and stuff to do long before it could
> come back online - corrupted disk or not.
>
> I find it hard to imagine configuring something that is too critical
> to be able to be restored from periodic backup to NOT be in a
> (synchronous) cluster. I'm not sure all the fuss over whether an SSD
> might come back after a hard server failure is really about. You
> should architect the solution so you can lose the server and throw
> it away and never bring it back online again. Native streaming
> replication is fairly straightforward to configure. Asynchronous
> multimaster (albeit with some synchronization latency) is also fairly
> easy to configure using third party tools such as SymmetricDS.
>
> Agreed that adding a supercap doesn't sound like a hard thing for
> a hardware manufacturer to do, but I don't think it should be a
> necessarily be showstopper for being able to take advantage of some
> awesome I/O performance opportunities.
Do you want to recreate the server if it loses power over an extra $100
per drive?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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: bruce@momjian.us, rotten@manta.com
Subject: Re: New server setup
In-Reply-To: <20130315185508.GA17688@momjian.us>
* 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