pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedWhy you should turn on Checksums with SSDs
3+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs
@ 2014-07-30 03:12 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2014-07-30 09:01 ` Re: Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2014-07-30 03:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
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!)
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs
2014-07-30 03:12 Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
@ 2014-07-30 09:01 ` Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>
2014-07-30 18:53 ` Re: Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tomas Vondra @ 2014-07-30 09:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>; +Cc: 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
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs
2014-07-30 03:12 Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2014-07-30 09:01 ` Re: Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>
@ 2014-07-30 18:53 ` Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Merlin Moncure @ 2014-07-30 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>; pgsql-performance
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz> wrote:
> 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?
Take a look here:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/12/27/208249/power-loss-protected-ssds-tested-only-intel-s3500...
"Only the end-of-lifed Intel 320 and its newer replacement, the S3500,
survived unscathed. The conclusion: if you care about data even when
power could be unreliable, only buy Intel SSDs.""
merlin
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-07-30 18:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-07-30 03:12 Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2014-07-30 09:01 ` Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>
2014-07-30 18:53 ` Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox