Re: Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server crash

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Balkrishna Sharma <b_ki(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server crash
Date: 2010-05-20 20:12:33
Message-ID: AANLkTinT3Tx3nNb4YME6j58Edp45Q9pgCyVRkZYTnXU1@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

The design of SSD is such that it cannot run without caching. It has
to cache to arrange things to be written out due to issues with the
fact that it cannot write small blocks one at a time but needs to
write large chunks together at once.

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Balkrishna Sharma <b_ki(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
> What if we don't rely on the cache of SSD, i.e. have write-through setting
> and not write-back. Is the performance gain then not significant to justify
> SSD ?
>
>> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:35:54 -0600
>> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server
>> crash
>> From: scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com
>> To: b_ki(at)hotmail(dot)com
>> CC: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>
>> SSD and battery backed cache kind of do the same thing, in that they
>> reduce random access times close to 0. However, most SSDs are still
>> not considered reliable due to their internal caching systems. hard
>> drives and bbu RAID are proven solutions, SSD is still not really
>> there just yet in terms of being proven reliable.
>>
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Balkrishna Sharma <b_ki(at)hotmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > Good suggestion. Thanks.
>> > What's your take on SSD ? I read somewhere that moving the WAL to SSD
>> > helps
>> > as well.
>> >
>> >> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:36:31 -0600
>> >> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server
>> >> crash
>> >> From: scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com
>> >> To: b_ki(at)hotmail(dot)com
>> >> CC: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Balkrishna Sharma <b_ki(at)hotmail(dot)com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I need to support several hundreds of concurrent update/inserts from
>> >> > an
>> >> > online form with pretty low latency (maybe couple of milliseconds at
>> >> > max).
>> >> > Think of a save to database at every 'tab-out' in an online form.
>> >>
>> >> You can get nearly the same performance by using a RAID controller
>> >> with battery backed cache without the same danger of losing
>> >> transactions.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> >> To make changes to your subscription:
>> >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with
>> > Hotmail. Get busy.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> When fascism comes to America, it will be intolerance sold as diversity.
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>
> ________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> Get started.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be intolerance sold as diversity.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Balkrishna Sharma 2010-05-20 20:26:42 Re: Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server crash
Previous Message Balkrishna Sharma 2010-05-20 20:10:19 Re: Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server crash