Re: Is Diskeeper Automatic Mode safe?

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Schnabel <schnabelr(at)missouri(dot)edu>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, cb <cb(at)mythtech(dot)net>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is Diskeeper Automatic Mode safe?
Date: 2009-11-16 20:50:39
Message-ID: dcc563d10911161250o766faabfyd51dcb6b88ed996@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Robert Schnabel <schnabelr(at)missouri(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> Ok, so you have sufficiently sparked my curiosity as to whether Diskeeper
> will in any way cause Postgres to fail the power chord test.  Unfortunately
> I have some deadlines to meet so won't be able to test this out until later

Best time is during acceptance testing before deployment. Failing
that testing it in production on the backup server so you can burn it
to the ground and rebuild it on a saturday.

Note that surviving the power plug being pulled doesn't PROVE your
system will always do that. You can try to simulate the real mix of
load and even replay queries when pulling the plug, only to find the
one corner case you didnt' test in production when power is lost. The
power cord plug can prove a system bad, but you're still somewhat
"hoping" it's really good, with a high probability of being right.

Which is why backup is so important.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2009-11-16 20:52:29 Re: Is Diskeeper Automatic Mode safe?
Previous Message Eddy Escardo-Raffo 2009-11-16 20:45:46 Re: Unexpected sequential scan on an indexed column