From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>
Cc: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:02:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4C1B0C11.1010204@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C1AE9A3.4080307@mark.mielke.cc>
References: <4C1ACE5F.1080802@catalyst.net.nz>
<4C1AE820.6020506@2ndquadrant.com>
<4C1AE9A3.4080307@mark.mielke.cc>
Mark Mielke wrote:
> The conclusion I read was that Linux O_SYNC behaves like O_DSYNC on
> other systems. For WAL, this seems satisfactory?
It would be if it didn't have any bugs or limitiations, but it does.
The one pointed out in the message I linked to suggests that a mix of
buffered and O_SYNC direct I/O can cause a write error, with the exact
behavior you get depending on the kernel version. That's a path better
not explored as I see it.
The kernels that have made some effort to implement this correctly
actually expose O_DSYNC, on newer Linux systems. My current opinion is
that if you only have Linux O_SYNC, don't use it. The ones with O_DSYNC
haven't been around for long enough to be proven or disproven as
effective yet.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
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: greg@2ndquadrant.com, mark@mark.mielke.cc, mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz
Subject: Re: wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?
In-Reply-To: <4C1B0C11.1010204@2ndquadrant.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