Re: [PERFORM] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid

From: Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid
Date: 2006-05-10 13:54:43
Message-ID: 4461F0A3.60102@logix-tt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-performance

Hi, Scott & all,

Scott Lamb wrote:

> I don't know the answer to this question, but have you seen this tool?
>
> http://brad.livejournal.com/2116715.html

We had a simpler tool inhouse, which wrote a file byte-for-byte, and
called fsync() after every byte.

If the number of fsyncs/min is higher than your rotations per minute
value of your disks, they must be lying.

It does not find as much liers as the script above, but it is less
intrusive (can be ran on every low-io machine without crashing it), and
it found some liers in-house (some notebook disks, one external
USB/FireWire to IDE case, and an older linux cryptoloop implementations,
IIRC).

If you're interested, I can dig for the C source...

HTH,
Markus

--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS

Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-05-10 14:01:33 Re: [PERFORM] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid
Previous Message chris smith 2006-05-10 13:00:14 Re: understanding explain data

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-05-10 14:01:33 Re: [PERFORM] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid
Previous Message Markus Schaber 2006-05-10 13:29:16 Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal