On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:19 AM, anj patnaik <patn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The Linux VM where postgres is running over NFS is in a different > location > > than where I am. Both the NFS mounted storage and VM are on the same > network > > connected via 1GB ethernet switch. > > > > The physical server for the Linux VM has UPS. > > > > Is there any specific test I can run to do power failure? > > > > Can I reboot my VM to test this or that wouldn't be good enough? > > > > Also, why does a checkpoint need to run? I used the graphical installer > to > > install postgres so I assume it would start automatically when the server > > starts. > > > > I was also thinking of blackhole testing. If I do a blackhole to the NFS > > server would I be able to test this accurately? > > > > Folks in the other teams believe NFS should work fine for us so I need to > > check it out. > > > > Your ideas are highly appreciated! > > The point of the checkpoint is to make sure as much as possible is > being written to the data directory when you "pull the plug". But > without being able to pull the power plugs on the NAS or db server you > can't really test for reliability in case of power loss. So you can't > know that it'll survive one. Just disconnecting its network connection > etc means it can still write out cached data if it isn't properly > syncing it. > All of the above make we curious about using NFS for the data files, but having the WAL files on a local, perhaps SSD, device. I am not knowledgeable about WAL. Of course, I don't know why the OP wants to put the database files on an NFS. -- Schrodinger's backup: The condition of any backup is unknown until a restore is attempted. Yoda of Borg, we are. Futile, resistance is, yes. Assimilated, you will be. He's about as useful as a wax frying pan. 10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone Maranatha! <>< John McKown
