From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
Cc: | pg <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Serious Crash last Friday |
Date: | 2002-07-10 20:16:53 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0207101414510.1682-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 05:19:47PM +0200, Henrik Steffen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for the information...
> >
> > the badblocks read-only test did not report any problems,
> > do you think i should run the "read-write" test, too?
>
> Well, if you do it'll destoy the data, so although it's the only way
> to be sure, I wouldn't unless absolutely pushed to do so. A
> read-write badblocks test on a big partition can take many hours.
This isn't entirely true. According to bad blocks' man page:
-n Use non-destructive read-write mode. By default
only a non-destructive read-only test is done.
This option must not be combined with the -w
option, as they are mutually exclusive.
So, with the -n switch, badblocks will save a sector, do a write / read
test, then restore the sector.
Note that this is pretty slow, as I've tested it before.
> > tonight I will have the memory checked by memtest86 ...
>
> Yes, that seems a good idea. Brand new hardware doesn't guarantee
> anything, particularly when memory is so fast these days (I've had
> DIMMs fail a couple of months after they were new).
Also, another REALLY good test for bad memory is to build postgresql from
source a couple dozen times, especially with a -j switch set to about 6 or
so.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-07-10 20:35:47 | Re: Serious Crash last Friday |
Previous Message | Doug Fields | 2002-07-10 19:58:51 | Re: Linux max on shared buffers? |