[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOi3E1ePfzWjq1epFaXsjtn8V_=r3h+PG6ankWW2fOr6GA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:38:06 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@...ptonector.com>
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database <sqlite-users@...ite.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, drh@...ci.com
Subject: Re: [sqlite] light weight write barriers
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Richard Hipp <drh@...ite.org> wrote:
>> Could you list the requirements of such a light weight barrier?
>> i.e. what would it need to do minimally, what's different from
>> fsync/fdatasync ?
>
> For SQLite, the write barrier needs to involve two separate inodes. The
> requirement is this:
...
> Note also that when fsync() works as advertised, SQLite transactions are
> ACID. But when fsync() is reduced to a write-barrier, we loss the D
> (durable) and transactions are only ACI. In our experience, nobody really
> cares very much about durable across a power-loss. People are mainly
> interested in Atomic, Consistent, and Isolated. If you take a power loss
> and then after reboot you find the 10 seconds of work prior to the power
> loss is missing, nobody much cares about that as long as all of the prior
> work is still present and consistent.
There is something you can do: use a combination of COW on-disk
formats in such a way that it's possible to detect partially-committed
transactions and rollback to the last good known root, and
backgrounded fsync()s (i.e., in a separate thread, without waiting for
the fsync() to complete).
Nico
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists