Re: Plug-pull testing worked, diskchecker.pl failed

From: Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Plug-pull testing worked, diskchecker.pl failed
Date: 2012-11-07 22:17:11
Message-ID: CALd+dcdQ23D+hE-b8q0X9OitWgMJpTs+U47ijnRzNgjqXbwSLA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:

> Is there a comprehensive list of drives that have been tested on the
> wiki somewhere? Our current choices seem to be the Intel 3xx series
> which STILL suffer from the "whoops I'm now an 8MB drive" bug and the
> very expensive SLC 7xx series Intel drives, the Hitachi Ultrastar
> SSD400M, and the OCZ Vertex 2 Pro. Any particular recommendations
> from those or other series from anyone would be greatly appreciated.
>

My most recent big box(es) are built using all Intel 3xx series drives.
Like you said, the 7xx series was way too expensive. The 5xx series looks
totally right on paper, until you find out they don't have a durable cache.
That just doesn't make sense in any universe... but that's the way they
are.

They seem to be doing really well so far. I connected them to LSI RAID
controllers, with the Fastpath option. I think they are pretty speedy.

On my general purpose boxes, I now spec the 3xx drives for boot (software
RAID) and use other drives such as Seagate Constellation for data with ZFS.
Sometimes I think that the ZFS volumes are faster than the SSD RAID
volumes, but it is not a fair comparison because the RAID systems are
CentOS 6 and the ZFS systems are FreeBSD 9.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lists 2012-11-07 22:31:14 Re: How to verify pg_dump files
Previous Message Lists 2012-11-07 22:15:26 Re: Unexpectedly high disk space usage