From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
To: Wes Vaske (wvaske) <wvaske@micron.com>
To: Graeme B. Bell <graeme.bell@nibio.no>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: New server: SSD/RAID recommendations?
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:59:49 +0300
Message-ID: <559BE965.7090609@iki.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31701C89A44B714FB8D242F806E7286C5AED372E@NTXBOIMBX01.micron.com>
References: <CAFwQ8rfwyBMD7AiL659qtG+UhsOUZthLSBYF7ODTn6TKxJoTPg@mail.gmail.com>
<VisenaEmail.44.70ed435cef1739b1.14e4c07dd3d@tc7-visena>
<31701C89A44B714FB8D242F806E7286C5AED32FA@NTXBOIMBX01.micron.com>
<CAFwQ8rcaFm9YBx81mRJ35U-p4mgiX8tJfEF0BV+7-EcS3HjbxA@mail.gmail.com>
<31701C89A44B714FB8D242F806E7286C5AED33EB@NTXBOIMBX01.micron.com>
<CAHyXU0w8bKJvv_FTt43SHEQT9ruZ6Sx6VFP8Bsw+h=FEUEjKCw@mail.gmail.com>
<A71AF312-79BD-44EC-88B9-FDD9446D1680@skogoglandskap.no>
<31701C89A44B714FB8D242F806E7286C5AED372E@NTXBOIMBX01.micron.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 07/07/2015 05:15 PM, Wes Vaske (wvaske) wrote:
> The M500/M550/M600 are consumer class drives that don't have power
> protection for all inflight data.* (like the Samsung 8x0 series and
> the Intel 3x0 & 5x0 series).
>
> The M500DC has full power protection for inflight data and is an
> enterprise-class drive (like the Samsung 845DC or Intel S3500 & S3700
> series).
>
> So any drive without the capacitors to protect inflight data will
> suffer from data loss if you're using disk write cache and you pull
> the power.
Wow, I would be pretty angry if I installed a SSD in my desktop, and it
loses a file that I saved just before pulling the power plug.
> *Big addendum: There are two issues on powerloss that will mess with
> Postgres. Data Loss and Data Corruption. The micron consumer drives
> will have power loss protection against Data Corruption and the
> enterprise drive will have power loss protection against BOTH.
>
> https://www.micron.com/~/media/documents/products/white-paper/wp_ssd_power_loss_protection.pdf
>
> The Data Corruption problem is only an issue in non-SLC NAND but
> it's industry wide. And even though some drives will protect against
> that, the protection of inflight data that's been fsync'd is more
> important and should disqualify *any* consumer drives from *any*
> company from consideration for use with Postgres.
So it lies about fsync()... The next question is, does it nevertheless
enforce the correct ordering of persisting fsync'd data? If you write to
file A and fsync it, then write to another file B and fsync it too, is
it guaranteed that if B is persisted, A is as well? Because if it isn't,
you can end up with filesystem (or database) corruption anyway.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: hlinnaka@iki.fi, wvaske@micron.com, graeme.bell@nibio.no
Subject: Re: New server: SSD/RAID recommendations?
In-Reply-To: <559BE965.7090609@iki.fi>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
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