On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Greg Smith <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In general, through, diskchecker.pl is the more sensitive test. If it > fails, storage is unreliable for PostgreSQL, period. It's good that you've > followed up by confirming the real database corruption implied by that is > also visible. In general, though, that's not needed. Diskchecker says the > drive is bad, you're done--don't put a database on it. Doing the database > level tests is more for finding false positives: where diskchecker says the > drive is OK, but perhaps there is a filesystem problem that makes it > unreliable, one that it doesn't test for. Thanks. That's the conclusion we were coming to too, though all I've seen is lost transactions and not any other form of damage. > What SSD are you using? The Intel 320 and 710 series models are the only > SATA-connected drives still on the market I know of that pass a serious > test. The other good models are direct PCI-E storage units, like the > FusionIO drives. I don't have the specs to hand, but one of them is a Kingston drive. Our local supplier is out of 320 series drives, so we were looking for others; will check out the 710s. It's crazy that so few drives can actually be trusted. ChrisA -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
