| |||||||||||||
Also, consider DRBDAlso, consider DRBDPosted Jun 4, 2012 15:07 UTC (Mon) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562)In reply to: Also, consider DRBD by nix Parent article: Clustering, development, and galactic conquest at PGCon 2012
As long as the snapshot is atomic it *has* to work. Otherwise the original purpose of the wal - crash recovery - wouldn't be met.
Checkpoints are crash safe. Whats the problem youre seeing there? The checkpoint record is only written to the wal *after* everything but the checkpoint information has been written out. Only after the checkpoint has been fsynced to disk resources - like the wal - are reused.
(Log in to post comments)
Also, consider DRBD Posted Jun 4, 2012 18:18 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Agreed, this is perfectly fine. I now suspect that my memory is lying to me: it tells me faintly that DRBD may transmit data in arbitrary order and does not do a complete transmit on fsync(), but I now suspect I'm thinking of some other distributed block device and just mixed it up with DRBD. If DRBD respects fsync(), then everything works.
Also, consider DRBD Posted Jun 4, 2012 18:25 UTC (Mon) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]
I think you can configure it in a way not all required guarantees are met. They are not generally recommended as far as I remember though.
... Yep: http://www.drbd.org/users-guide/re-drbdconf.html check the docs for disk-barrier.
|
|||||||||||||