From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rees <drees76(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Occasional giant spikes in CPU load |
Date: | 2010-04-14 21:58:33 |
Message-ID: | 201004142158.o3ELwXL09621@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Craig James wrote:
> On 4/7/10 5:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:56 PM, David Rees<drees76(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> max_fsm_pages = 16000000
> >>> max_fsm_relations = 625000
> >>> synchronous_commit = off
> >>
> >> You are playing with fire here. You should never turn this off unless
> >> you do not care if your data becomes irrecoverably corrupted.
> >
> > That is not correct. Turning off synchronous_commit is sensible if
> > you don't mind losing the last few transactions on a crash. What will
> > corrupt your database is if you turn off fsync.
>
> A bit off the original topic, but ...
>
> I set it this way because I was advised that with a battery-backed
> RAID controller, this was a safe setting. Is that not the case?
To get good performance, you can either get a battery-backed RAID
controller or risk losing a few transaction with synchronous_commit =
off. If you already have a battery-backed RAID controller, there is
little benefit to turning synchronous_commit off, and some major
downsides (possible data loss).
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-04-14 23:10:28 | Re: JDBC question for PG 8.3.9 |
Previous Message | Dave Crooke | 2010-04-14 20:49:16 | JDBC question for PG 8.3.9 |