Re: fsync = true beneficial on ext3?

From: JM <jerome(at)gmanmi(dot)tv>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: fsync = true beneficial on ext3?
Date: 2004-02-10 08:47:58
Message-ID: 200402101647.58347.jerome@gmanmi.tv
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Would a battery backed Card do the trick?

On Tuesday 10 February 2004 00:42, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ed L. wrote:
> > I'm curious what the consensus is, if any, on use of fsync on ext3
> > filesystems with postgresql 7.3.4 or later. I did some recent
> > performance tests demonstrating a 45%-70% performance improvement for
> > simple inserts with fsync off on one particular system. Does fsync =
> > true buy me any additional recoverability beyond ext3's journal recovery?
>
> Yes, it does. Without fsync, you can't be sure the data has been pushed
> to the disk drive in case of an OS crash or power failure.
>
> > If we write something without sync'ing, presumably it's immediately
> > journaled? So even if the DB crashes prior to fsync'ing, are we fully
> > recoverable? I've been running a few pgsql clusters on ext3 with fsync =
> > false, suffered numerous OS crashes, and have yet to lose any data or see
> > any corruption from any of those crashes. Have I just been lucky?
>
> The fsync makes sure it hits the drive, rather than staying in the
> kernel cache during an OS failure.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Gibson 2004-02-10 09:08:33 Re: newbie pl/pgsql question on trigger function error
Previous Message Claudio Cicali 2004-02-10 08:13:01 Re: I want to use postresql for this app, but...