On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would think full_page_writes=off + double write buffer should be
>> far superior, particularly given that the WAL is shipped over the
>> network to slaves.
>
> For a reasonably brief description of InnoDB double write buffers, I
> found this:
>
> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/04/innodb-double-write/
>
> One big question before even considering this would by how to
> determine whether a potentially torn page "is inconsistent".
> Without a page CRC or some such mechanism, I don't see how this
> technique is possible.
>
> Even if it's possible, it's far from clear to me that it would be an
> improvement. The author estimates (apparently somewhat loosely)
> that it's a 5% to 10% performance hit in InnoDB; I'm far from
> certain that full_page_writes cost us that much. Does anyone have
> benchmark numbers handy?
>
> -Kevin
>
Ignoring (briefly) the cost in terms of performance of the different
system, not needing full_page_writes would make geographically
dispersed replication possible for certain cases where it is not
currently (or at least rather painful).
--
Rob Wultsch
wultsch@gmail.com
