Re: Testing Sandforce SSD

greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com (Greg Smith) writes:
> Yeb Havinga wrote:
>> * What filesystem to use on the SSD? To minimize writes and maximize
>> chance for seeing errors I'd choose ext2 here.
>
> I don't consider there to be any reason to deploy any part of a
> PostgreSQL database on ext2. The potential for downtime if the fsck
> doesn't happen automatically far outweighs the minimal performance
> advantage you'll actually see in real applications.

Ah, but if the goal is to try to torture the SSD as cruelly as possible,
these aren't necessarily downsides (important or otherwise).

I don't think ext2 helps much in "maximizing chances of seeing errors"
in notably useful ways, as the extra "torture" that takes place as part
of the post-remount fsck isn't notably PG-relevant. (It's not obvious
that errors encountered would be readily mapped to issues relating to
PostgreSQL.)

I think the WAL-oriented test would be *way* more useful; inducing work
whose "brokenness" can be measured in one series of files in one
directory should be way easier than trying to find changes across a
whole PG cluster. I don't expect the filesystem choice to be terribly
significant to that.
--
"cbbrowne","@","gmail.com"
"Heuristics (from the French heure, "hour") limit the amount of time
spent executing something. [When using heuristics] it shouldn't take
longer than an hour to do something."