Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions
| От | Craig Ringer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMsr+YHvML=eFiPPVF1Vcc+QPxojACo4gfbA_vkD=jXw_1yYAg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>) |
| Ответы |
Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 27 November 2015 at 21:28, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I plan to do more power failure testing soon, with more complex test
> scenarios. I suspect there might be other similar issues (e.g. when we
> rename a file before a checkpoint and don't fsync the directory - then the
> rename won't be replayed and will be lost).
I'm curious how you're doing this testing. The easiest way I can think
of would be to run a database on an LVM volume and take a large number
of LVM snapshots very rapidly and then see if the database can start
up from each snapshot. Bonus points for keeping track of the committed
transactions before each snaphsot and ensuring they're still there I
guess.
I've had a few tries at implementing a qemu-based crashtester where it hard kills the qemu instance at a random point then starts it back up.
I always got stuck on the validation part - actually ensuring that the DB state is how we expect. I think I could probably get that right now, it's been a while.
The VM can be started back up and killed again over and over quite quickly.
It's not as good as physical plug-pull, but it's a lot more practical.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: