On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:41:02PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: >> 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. > > Yes. Welcome to our craziness! Is there a comprehensive list of drives that have been tested on the wiki somewhere? Our current choices seem to be the Intel 3xx series which STILL suffer from the "whoops I'm now an 8MB drive" bug and the very expensive SLC 7xx series Intel drives, the Hitachi Ultrastar SSD400M, and the OCZ Vertex 2 Pro. Any particular recommendations from those or other series from anyone would be greatly appreciated. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
