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.
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 |