Re: SSDD reliability

From: David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSDD reliability
Date: 2011-05-05 12:50:17
Message-ID: 4DC29D09.6000904@boreham.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 5/4/2011 11:50 PM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
>
> In what way has the SMART read failed?
> (I get the relevant values out successfully myself, and have Munin
> graph them.)
Mis-parse :) It was my _attempts_ to read SMART that failed.
Specifically, I was able to read a table of numbers from the drive, but
none of the numbers looked particularly useful or likely to be a "time
to live" number. Similar to traditional drives, where you get this table
of numbers that are either zero or random, that you look at saying
"Huh?", all of which are flagged as "failing". Perhaps I'm using the
wrong SMART groking tools ?

>
>
> I do have to wonder if this Portman Wills guy was somehow Doing It
> Wrong to get a 100% failure rate over eight disks..
>
There are people out there who are especially highly charged.
So if he didn't wear out the drives, the next most likely cause I'd
suspect is that he ESD zapped them.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Curvey 2011-05-05 13:23:57 Re: postgres segfaulting on pg_restore
Previous Message David Boreham 2011-05-05 12:33:16 Re: Fwd: Re: SSDD reliability