Unix Technical Forum

Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

This is a discussion on Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC within the pgsql Hackers forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> >>> The point here is that fsync-off is only realistic for development or >>> playpen installations. You don't turn ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > PostgreSQL > pgsql Hackers

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 04:47 AM
Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC


>>> The point here is that fsync-off is only realistic for development

or
>>> playpen installations. You don't turn it off in a production
>>> machine, and I can't see that you'd turn off the full-page-write
>>> option either. So we have not solved anyone's performance problem.

>
>> Yes, this is basically another fsync-like option that isn't for
>> production usage in most cases. Sad but true.

>
> Just to make my position perfectly clear: I don't want to see
> this option shipped in 8.1.


Why not ? If your filesystem buffer size matches your pg page size,
and you have a persistent write cache, the option makes perfect sense.

Andreas

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 04:49 AM
Simon Riggs
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 09:34 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD wrote:
> >>> The point here is that fsync-off is only realistic for development

> or
> >>> playpen installations. You don't turn it off in a production
> >>> machine, and I can't see that you'd turn off the full-page-write
> >>> option either. So we have not solved anyone's performance problem.

> >
> >> Yes, this is basically another fsync-like option that isn't for
> >> production usage in most cases. Sad but true.

> >
> > Just to make my position perfectly clear: I don't want to see
> > this option shipped in 8.1.

>
> Why not ? If your filesystem buffer size matches your pg page size,
> and you have a persistent write cache, the option makes perfect sense.


I think this point needs expansion:

It is possible to run with matching page sizes, in which case the option
to not-log full page images is desirable.

The only type of crash that can cause torn pages is an OS crash, such as
a power outage. If you have an expensive server with battery backup,
persistent write cache etc then this reduces that risk considerably.

However, as long as PostgreSQL can't tell the difference between any
crash and an OS crash, we must assume the worst.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com