From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stef Telford <stef(at)ummon(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Raid 10 chunksize |
Date: | 2009-04-01 07:57:57 |
Message-ID: | 49D31E85.8050405@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Scott Carey wrote:
>
> A little extra info here >> md, LVM, and some other tools do not allow the
> file system to use write barriers properly.... So those are on the bad list
> for data integrity with SAS or SATA write caches without battery back-up.
> However, this is NOT an issue on the postgres data partition. Data fsync
> still works fine, its the file system journal that might have out-of-order
> writes. For xlogs, write barriers are not important, only fsync() not
> lying.
>
> As an additional note, ext4 uses checksums per block in the journal, so it
> is resistant to out of order writes causing trouble. The test compared to
> here was on ext4, and most likely the speed increase is partly due to that.
>
>
[Looks at Stef's config - 2x 7200 rpm SATA RAID 0] I'm still highly
suspicious of such a system being capable of outperforming one with the
same number of (effective) - much faster - disks *plus* a dedicated WAL
disk pair... unless it is being a little loose about fsync! I'm happy to
believe ext4 is better than ext3 - but not that much!
However, its great to have so many different results to compare against!
Cheers
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2009-04-01 08:11:45 | Re: Raid 10 chunksize |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-03-31 23:35:53 | Re: Strange behavior: pgbench and new Linux kernels |