fsyncing data to disk
Hi,
this is not exactly a Postgresql question, but an input from hackers
list like this would be invaluable for me.
I am coding my own database engine, and I decided to do not implement
transaction engine because it implies too much code.
But to achieve the Durability of ACID I need a 100% reliable write to
disk. By design no record in my DB will be larger than 512 bytes, so I
am using the page size of 512 bytes, that matches the size of the disk
block, so every write() I will execute with the following fdatasync()
call will be 100% written, is that correct? It won't make a 300 byte
write if I tell it to write 512 and the power goes off or will it? I
am going to use the whole partition device for the DB (like /dev/sda1)
, so no filesystem code will be used. Also I am using asynchronous IO
(the aio_read and aio_write) and I don't know if they can be combined
with the fdatasync() syscall?
Will appreciate your comments
Regards
--
==================================
The power of zero is infinite
On Sep9, 2011, at 20:15 , Nulik Nol wrote:
this is not exactly a Postgresql question, but an input from hackers
list like this would be invaluable for me.
I am coding my own database engine, and I decided to do not implement
transaction engine because it implies too much code.
But to achieve the Durability of ACID I need a 100% reliable write to
disk. By design no record in my DB will be larger than 512 bytes, so I
am using the page size of 512 bytes,
Beware that there *are* disks with block sizes other than 512 bytes. For
example, at least for 2.5" disks, 4096 bytes/block is becoming quite
common these days.
that matches the size of the disk
block, so every write() I will execute with the following fdatasync()
call will be 100% written, is that correct? It won't make a 300 byte
write if I tell it to write 512 and the power goes off or will it?
Since error correction is done per-block, it's very unlikely that you'd see
only 300 of the 512 bytes overwritten - the drive would detect uncorrectable
data corruption and report an error instead. Whether that error is reported back
to the application as an IO error or as a zeroed-out block probably depends on
the OS.
What you actually seem to want is a stronger all-or-nothing guarantee which
precludes the error case. AFAIK, most disk drives kinda-of do that, because
the various capacitors which stabilize the power supply usually hold enough
charge to complete a write once it's started, and because they stop operating
if the power drops below some threshold. But I doubt that they provide any
hard guarantees in this area, I guess it's more of a best-effort thing.
To get hard guarantees, you'll need to use a RAID controller with a
battery-backed cache. Or use a journal/WAL like postgres (and most filesystems)
do, and protect journal/WAL entries with a checksum to detect partially written
entries.
I am going to use the whole partition device for the DB (like /dev/sda1)
, so no filesystem code will be used. Also I am using asynchronous IO
(the aio_read and aio_write) and I don't know if they can be combined
with the fdatasync() syscall?
Someone else (maybe the POSIX spec?) must answer that as I know very little
about asynchronous IO.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> wrote:
I am going to use the whole partition device for the DB (like /dev/sda1)
, so no filesystem code will be used. Also I am using asynchronous IO
(the aio_read and aio_write) and I don't know if they can be combined
with the fdatasync() syscall?Someone else (maybe the POSIX spec?) must answer that as I know very little
about asynchronous IO.
There's an aio_fsync as part of the aio api, But you could use fsync
or fdatasync -- I assume you would have to wait for the aio_write to
have finished before you issue the fsync. But if you're going to
fdatasync all your writes right away you may as well open with O_DSYNC
which is, I gather, exactly how aio is intended to be used.
--
greg