Ivan, I do not want to create new files. As far as I know, now we copy segments to archive dir before they get checkpointed. What I suggest is to copy them to a temp dir under wal directory and then move to archive. In my understanding at the time we copy the files to a temp folder all changes to them are already fsynced.
Correct? Yakov Zhdanov, www.gridgain.com 2018-02-13 21:29 GMT+03:00 Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com>: > Yakov, > > I see the only one problem with your suggestion - number of > "uncheckpointed" segments is potentially unlimited. > Right now we have limited number (10) of file segments with immutable > names in WAL "work" directory. We have to keep this approach due to known > bug in XFS - fsync time is nearly twice bigger for recently created files. > > Best Regards, > Ivan Rakov > > > On 13.02.2018 21:22, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > >> I meant we still will be copying segment once and then will be moving it >> to >> archive which should not affect file system much. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> --Yakov >> >> 2018-02-13 21:19 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>: >> >> Alex, >>> >>> I remember we had some confusing behavior for WAL archive when archived >>> segments were required for successful recovery. >>> >>> Is issue still present? >>> >>> If yes, what if we copy "uncheckpointed" segments to a directory under >>> wal >>> directory and then move the segments to archive after checkpoint? Will >>> this >>> work? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> --Yakov >>> >>> >
