>
>
> Ahh. I think you can use this effectively but not the way you're
> describing.
>
> Instead of writing the wal directly to persistentFS what I think you're
> better
> off doing is treating persistentFS as your backup storage. Use "Archiving"
> as
> described here to archive the WAL files to pe
"Ram Ravichandran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem that I am facing is that EC2 has no persistent storage (at least
> currently). So, if the server restarts for some reason, all data on the
> local disks are gone. The idea was to store the tables on the non-persistent
> local disk, and d
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 00:04 -0400, Ram Ravichandran wrote:
> This seems like a much better idea. So, I should
> a) disable synchronous_commit
> b) set wal_writer_delay to say 1 minute (and leave fsync on)
> c) symlink pg_xlog to the PersistentFS on S3.
>
a) sounds good. b) has a max setting o
>
>
> Wow, this is a fascinating situation. Are you sure the fsyncs are the only
> thing to worry about though? Postgres will call write(2) many times even if
> you disabled fsync entirely. Surely the kernel and filesystem will
> eventually
> send some of them through even if no fsyncs arrive?
>
G
>
>
>> Are you sure this will work correctly for database use at all? The known
> issue listed at
> http://www.persistentfs.com/documentation/Release_Notessounded like a much
> bigger consistancy concern than the fsync trivia you're
> bringing up:
>
> "In the current Technology Preview release,
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Ram Ravichandran wrote:
My current plan is to mount an Amazon S3 bucket as a drive using
PersistentFS which is a POSIX-compliant file system.
Are you sure this will work correctly for database use at all? The known
issue listed at http://www.persistentfs.com/documentation
"Ram Ravichandran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey,
> I am running a postgresql server on Amazon EC2. My current plan is to mount
> an Amazon S3 bucket as a drive using PersistentFS which is a POSIX-compliant
> file system.
> I will be using this for write-ahead-logging. The issue with S3 is tha
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Ram Ravichandran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Running without fsyncs is likely to lead to a corrupted db if you get
>> a crash / loss of connection etc...
>
> Just to clarify, by corrupted db you mean that all information (even the
> ones prior to the last fsync)
> Running without fsyncs is likely to lead to a corrupted db if you get
> a crash / loss of connection etc...
>
Just to clarify, by corrupted db you mean that all information (even the
ones prior to the last fsync) will be lost. Right?
Thanks,
Ram
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Ram Ravichandran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
> I am running a postgresql server on Amazon EC2. My current plan is to mount
> an Amazon S3 bucket as a drive using PersistentFS which is a POSIX-compliant
> file system.
> I will be using this for write-ahead-loggi
Hey,
I am running a postgresql server on Amazon EC2. My current plan is to mount
an Amazon S3 bucket as a drive using PersistentFS which is a POSIX-compliant
file system.
I will be using this for write-ahead-logging. The issue with S3 is that
though the actual storage is cheap, they charge $1 per 1
11 matches
Mail list logo
