From: | "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs |
Date: | 2014-07-30 09:01:55 |
Message-ID: | 5d7d4ed635ce16023d8871f692053242.squirrel@sq.gransy.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 30 Červenec 2014, 5:12, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Explained here:
> https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/fast13/fast13-final80.pdf
>
> 13 out of 15 tested SSD's had various kinds of corruption on a power-out.
>
> (thanks, Neil!)
Well, only four of the devices supposedly had a power-loss protection
(battery, capacitor, ...) so I guess it's not really that surprising the
remaining 11 devices failed in a test like this. Although it really
shouldn't damage the device, as apparently happened during the tests.
Too bad they haven't mentioned which SSDs they've been testing
specifically. While I understand the reason for that (HP Labs can't just
point at products from other companies), it significantly limits the
usefulness of the study. Too many companies are producing crappy
consumer-level devices, advertising them as "enterprise". I could name a
few ...
Maybe it could be deciphered using the information in the paper
(power-loss protection, year of release, ...).
I'd expect to see Intel 320/710 to see there, but that seems not to be the
case, because those devices were released in 2011 and all the four devices
with power-loss protection have year=2012. Or maybe it's the year when
that particular device was manufactured?
regards
Tomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rural Hunter | 2014-07-30 10:03:30 | Re: Very slow planning performance on partition table |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2014-07-30 08:42:17 | Re: 60 core performance with 9.3 |