Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C036327E1 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 21:07:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67744-06 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 2010 00:07:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mtu.net (mtu.net [204.11.35.17]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30AC63234F for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 21:07:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mtu.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B771143E768; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:07:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mtu.net Received: from mtu.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mtu.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4bwmMbFDLimd; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.42.2] (jon [76.17.225.95]) (Authenticated sender: jpschewe) by mtu.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3565143E766; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C0AE6AC.9080501@mtu.net> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 19:07:08 -0500 From: Jon Schewe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 SUSE/3.0.4-1.1.1 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Marlowe CC: Greg Smith , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL References: <4C08EEDF.7090403@mtu.net> <4C0AD180.90607@2ndquadrant.com> <4C0AD280.5020105@mtu.net> <4C0AD547.2040308@2ndquadrant.com> <4C0AD7DF.1030705@mtu.net> <4C0AE4C2.5020309@mtu.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.011 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_20=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201006/122 X-Sequence-Number: 38978 On 06/05/2010 07:02 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: > >> On 06/05/2010 06:54 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 06/05/2010 05:52 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Jon Schewe wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> If that's the case, what you've measured is which filesystems are >>>>>>> safe because they default to flushing drive cache (the ones that take >>>>>>> around 15 minutes) and which do not (the ones that take >=around 2 >>>>>>> hours). You can't make ext3 flush the cache correctly no matter what >>>>>>> you do with barriers, they just don't work on ext3 the way PostgreSQL >>>>>>> needs them to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> So the 15 minute runs are doing it correctly and safely, but the slow >>>>>> ones are doing the wrong thing? That would imply that ext3 is the safe >>>>>> one. But your last statement suggests that ext3 is doing the wrong >>>>>> thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I goofed and reversed the two times when writing that. As is always >>>>> the case with this sort of thing, the unsafe runs are the fast ones. >>>>> ext3 does not ever do the right thing no matter how you configure it, >>>>> you have to compensate for its limitations with correct hardware setup >>>>> to make database writes reliable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> OK, so if I want the 15 minute speed, I need to give up safety (OK in >>>> this case as this is just research testing), or see if I can tune >>>> postgres better. >>>> >>>> >>> Or use a trustworthy hardware caching battery backed RAID controller, >>> either in RAID mode or JBOD mode. >>> >>> >> Right, because the real danger here is if the power goes out you can end >> up with a scrambled database, correct? >> > Correct. Assuming you can get power applied again before the battery > in the RAID controller dies, it will then flush out its cache and your > data will still be coherent. > Or if you really don't care if your database is scrambled after a power outage you can go without the battery backed RAID controller.