Re: Maximum transaction rate - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Marco Colombo
Subject Re: Maximum transaction rate
Date
Msg-id 49BFAF6D.1060907@esiway.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Maximum transaction rate  (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>)
Responses Re: Maximum transaction rate  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
List pgsql-general
John R Pierce wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> So in my understanding LVM is safe on disks that have write cache
>> disabled or "behave" as one (like a controller with a battery backed
>> cache).
>
> what about drive write caches on battery backed raid controllers?  do
> the controllers ensure the drive cache gets flushed prior to releasing
> the cached write blocks ?

If LVM/dm is lying about fsync(), all this is moot. There's no point
talking about disk caches.

BTW. This discussion is continuing on the linux-lvm mailing list.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2009-March/msg00025.html
I have some PG databases on LVM systems, so I need to know for sure
I have have to move them elsewhere. It seemed to me the right place
for asking about the issue.

Someone there pointed out that fsycn() is not LVM's responsibility.

Correct. For sure, there's an API (or more than one) a filesystem uses
to force a flush on the underlying block device, and for sure it has to
called while inside the fsync() system call.

So "lying to fsync()" maybe is more correct than "lying about fsync()".

.TM.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Enrico Pirozzi
Date:
Subject: Re: Records Number
Next
From: Juan Pereira
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data