Re: Test disk reliability (or HGST HTS721010A9E630 surprisingly reliable)
| От | Félix GERZAGUET |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Test disk reliability (or HGST HTS721010A9E630 surprisingly reliable) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CANVwZttLJiG+Z+-zbQ6KxCw+e3dELt6CaOG_x=uBusRBjk7Lvw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Test disk reliability (or HGST HTS721010A9E630 surprisingly reliable) (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Test disk reliability (or HGST HTS721010A9E630
surprisingly reliable)
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
On 12/20/15 1:09 PM, Félix GERZAGUET wrote:After reading
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/wal-reliability.html, I
tried the recommended diskchecker.pl
<http://brad.livejournal.com/2116715.html> but I am not satisfied:
I always get:
Total errors: 0
even if I tested with with a HGST HTS721010A9E630 that the vendor's
datasheet
(http://www.hgst.com/sites/default/files/resources/TS7K1000_ds.pdf)
advertise as "
Designed for low duty cycle, non mission-critical applications in
PC,nearline and consumer electronics environments, which vary
application to application
"
Since it is not, a high end disk, I expect some errors.
Why? Just because a disk isn't enterprise-grade doesn't mean it has to lie about fsync, which is the only thing diskchecker.pl tests for.
I was thinking that since the disk have a 32M write-cache (with not battery) it would lie to the OS (and postgres) about when data are really on disk (not in the disk write cache). But maybe that thinking was wrong.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: