Re: Postgres fsync off (not needed) with NetApp - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: Postgres fsync off (not needed) with NetApp
Date
Msg-id 20060615155420.GK34196@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgres fsync off (not needed) with NetApp  ("Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:14:26AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2006 23:33:53 -0400, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.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.

Just so there's no confusion... this applies to any caching RAID
controller as well. You just need to ensure that the cache in the
controller absolutely will not be lost in the event of a power failure
or what-have-you. On most controllers this is accomplished with a simple
battery backup; I don't know if the higher-end stuff takes further steps
(such as flashing the cache contents to flash memory on a power
failure).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Confirmation of bad query plan generated by 7.4
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Precomputed constants?