2 ms·
I didn't necessarily mean exactly fsync. I guess I'll ask: Is it actually flushed to persistent disk in 600ns such that if the node crashes, the data can always
by dangoodmanUT 2y ago
I didn't necessarily mean exactly fsync. I guess I'll ask: Is it actually flushed to persistent disk in 600ns such that if the node crashes, the data can always be read again? Or does that not fully flush?
- mehrant 2y agoyes, in that case data can potentially be lost. 30 sec in a worse case scenario without HA.
- gkbrk 2y agoThere's a tiny 50,000,000x difference between the now admitted 30 seconds and the previously claimed 600 nanoseconds.
- dangoodmanUT 2y agoSo it's not actually persistence then. That's extremely deceptive, and (IANAL) I think false advertisement. I'd clarify it. That's also not HA, that's durability. Concerning.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoI have a product to sell you with a postgres interface but p99 write latency of 100 nanoseconds. It's postgres but our driver says "write done" before a write completes. It's revolutionary!