Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Reports from SSD purgatory

From: David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reports from SSD purgatory
Date: 2011-08-24 19:43:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 8/24/2011 1:32 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Why is that important? It's simply a failure of electronics and it has 
> nothing to do with the wear limits. It simply fails without prior 
> warning from the SMART.

In the cited article (actually in all articles I've read on this 
subject), the failures were not properly analyzed*.
Therefore the conclusion that the failures were of electronics 
components is invalid.
In the most recent article, people have pointed to it as confirming 
electronics failures
but the article actually states that the majority of failures were 
suspected to be

We know that a) there have been failures, but b) not the cause.

We don't even know for sure that the cause was not cell wear.
That's because all we know is that the drives did not report
wear before failing. The wear reporting mechanism could be broken for 
all we know.

*A "proper" analysis would involve either the original manufacturer's FA 
lab, or a qualified independent analysis lab.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tomas VondraDate: 2011-08-24 19:54:48
Subject: Re: Reports from SSD purgatory
Previous:From: gnuoytrDate: 2011-08-24 19:42:05
Subject: Re: Reports from SSD purgatory

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group