On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I took it to mean that his standby's "raid 10 SAS" meant disk drive
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Cuong Hoang <climbingrose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Our application is heavy write and IO utilisation has been the problem for
>> us for a while. We've decided to use RAID 10 of 4x500GB Samsung 840 Pro for
>> the master server. I'm aware of write cache issue on SSDs in case of power
>> loss. However, our hosting provider doesn't offer any other choices of SSD
>> drives with supercapacitor. To minimise risk, we will also set up another
>> RAID 10 SAS in streaming replication mode. For our application, a few
>> seconds of data loss is acceptable.
>>
>> My question is, would corrupted data files on the primary server affect
>> the streaming standby? In other word, is this setup acceptable in terms of
>> minimising deficiency of SSDs?
>
>
>
> That seems rather scary to me for two reasons.
>
> If the data center has a sudden power failure, why would it not take out
> both machines either simultaneously or in short succession? Can you verify
> that the hosting provider does not have them on the same UPS (or even worse,
> as two virtual machines on the same physical host)?
based standby.
I had not considered that. If the master can't keep up with IO using disk drives, wouldn't a replica using them probably fall infinitely far behind trying to keep up with the workload?
Maybe the best choice would just be stick with the current set-up (one server, spinning rust) and just turn off synchrounous_commit, since he is already willing to take the loss of a few seconds of transactions.
Cheers,
Jeff
