[Quickfixj-users] What are the dangers of FileStoreSync=N

[Kuhn, S. <Sim...@si...>]

Hi

Who has experience with FileStoreSync?

We have learnt that FileStoreSync=Y is a good idea to avoid inconsistencies after system crashes, network issues or stuff like this. We have no issues with having the file-store synchronized on local SSD disk, on Storage Area Network (SAN) disk however it becomes a big performance issue for us. We have to use SAN disk to meet Business Continuity Management (BCM) requirements. With the requirements SAN disk and FileStoreSync=Y we are not able to meet the performance goals (700 messages / second).

It looks like we have two options:
1) FileStoreSync=N and to know how to deal with inconsistencies after system issues
2) Implementing an own file-store in the hope that it is even possible to achieve the performance goals

We would really like to go with option 1 (FileStoreSync=N) but we are not sure what problems we could face in case of system issues. What are your experiences, could we end up in a state where we couldn't proceed with doing business with our customers without manual interventions (correcting generated QuickFixJ files) after a system crash, network issues or stuff like that? What can happen with FileStoreSync=N, what are the dangers?

Just in case, has someone experience with implementing a file-store with performance enhancements (option 2)?

Greetings to the QuickFixJ community!
Simon

The content of this e-mail is intended only for the confidential use of the person addressed. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately.
Thank you.