Re: Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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