Re: Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server crash

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jesper Krogh wrote:
A Battery Backed raid controller is not that expensive. (in the range of 1 or 2 SSD disks).
And it is (more or less) a silverbullet to the task you describe.

Maybe even less; in order to get a SSD that's reliable at all in terms of good crash recovery, you have buy a fairly expensive one. Also, and this is really important, you really don't want to deploy onto a single SSD and put critical system files there. Their failure rates are not that low. You need to put them into a RAID-1 setup and budget for two of them, which brings you right back to

Also, it's questionable whether a SSD is even going to be faster than standard disks for the sequential WAL writes anyway, once a non-volatile write cache is available. Sequential writes to SSD are the area where the gap in performance between them and spinning disks is the smallest.

Plugging your system (SSD's) with an UPS and trusting it fully
could solve most of the problems (running in writeback mode).

UPS batteries fail, and people accidentally knock out over server power cords. It's a pretty bad server that can't survive someone tripping over the cord while it's busy, and that's the situation the "use a UPS" idea doesn't improve.

--
Greg Smith  2ndQuadrant US  Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   www.2ndQuadrant.us


--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux