Actually, I don't think even that is a valid test. The absence of a failure doesn't mean one can't occur in this case. Doesn't matter if you try the test 1 or 10,000 times; the test will only be conclusive if you actually see a failure.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 10:19:15AM -0700, scott.marlowe wrote: > On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Ed L. wrote: > > > > > I'm curious what the consensus is, if any, on use of fsync on ext3 > > filesystems with postgresql 7.3.4 or later. I did some recent performance > > tests demonstrating a 45%-70% performance improvement for simple inserts > > with fsync off on one particular system. Does fsync = true buy me any > > additional recoverability beyond ext3's journal recovery? > > > > If we write something without sync'ing, presumably it's immediately > > journaled? So even if the DB crashes prior to fsync'ing, are we fully > > recoverable? I've been running a few pgsql clusters on ext3 with fsync = > > false, suffered numerous OS crashes, and have yet to lose any data or see > > any corruption from any of those crashes. Have I just been lucky? > > With all the other posts on this topic, I just want to point out that it's > all theory until you build your machine, set it up, initiate a hundred or > so parallel transactions, and pull the plug in the middle. > > Without pulling the plug, you just don't know for sure. And you need to > do it a few times, in case your machine "got lucky" once and might fail on > subsequent power fails. > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]