Re: Postgres fsync off (not needed) with NetApp

From: Dan Gorman <dgorman(at)hi5(dot)com>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Mark Lewis" <mark(dot)lewis(at)mir3(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres fsync off (not needed) with NetApp
Date: 2006-06-15 05:20:25
Message-ID: 6A9B730A-425A-456E-9913-031B652E6227@hi5.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

That makes sense. Speaking of NetApp, we're using the 3050C with 4 FC
shelfs. Any generic advice other than the NetApp (their NFS oracle
tuning options)
that might be useful? (e.g. turning off snapshots)

Regards,
Dan Gorman

On Jun 14, 2006, at 10:14 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote:

> On 14 Jun 2006 23:33:53 -0400, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>> In fact the benefit of the NVRAM is precisely that it makes sure
>> you *don't*
>> have any reason to turn fsync off. It should make the fsync
>> essentially free.
>
> Having run PostgreSQL on a NetApp with input from NetApp, this is
> correct. fsync should be turned on, but you will not incur the *real*
> direct-to-disk cost of the sync, it will be direct-to-NVRAM.
>
> --
> Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
> EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
> 33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
> Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2006-06-15 05:35:43 Re: Postgres fsync off (not needed) with NetApp
Previous Message Jonah H. Harris 2006-06-15 05:14:26 Re: Postgres fsync off (not needed) with NetApp