Re: Online verification of checksums

Hi,

Am Mittwoch, den 04.11.2020, 17:48 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:30:28AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Playing with dd and generating random pages, this detects random
> > corruptions, making use of a wait/retry loop if a failure is detected.
> > As mentioned upthread, this is a double-edged sword, increasing the
> > number of retries reduces the changes of false positives, at the cost
> > of making regression tests longer. This stuff uses up to 5 retries
> > with 100ms of sleep for each page. (I am aware of the fact that the
> > commit message of the main patch is not written yet).
>
> So, I have done much more testing of this patch using an instance with
> a small shared buffer pool and pgbench running in parallel for having
> a large eviction rate, and I cannot convince myself to do that. My
> laptop got easily constrained on I/O, and within a total of 2000 base
> backups or so, I have seen some 5 backup failures with a correct
> detection logic.

I don't quite undestand what you mean here: how do the base backups
fail, and what exactly is "correct detection logic"?

Michael

--
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Senior Berater
Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171
Fax: +49 2166 9901-100
Email: michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de

credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080
USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer

Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt
folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz