Re: BBU still needed with SSD?

From: Klaus Ita <klaus(at)worstofall(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BBU still needed with SSD?
Date: 2011-07-21 07:19:45
Message-ID: CAGrfkYOT9iUofFMrmBcxtHtgLxsDUa2W8FgCFW5pQ=GBaiy9fg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Have you also created your partitions with a reasonably new fdisk (or
equivalent) with -c -u as options?

Your partitions should be starting somewhere at 2048 i guess (let the
sw figure that out). The fast degradation of the one disk might
indicate bad partitioning? (maybe recheck with a grml.iso or something
alike http://www.grml.org/ )
Also, ... did you know that any unused space in the disk is being used
as bad block 'replacement'? so just leave out 1-2 GB space at the end
of your disk to make use of this 'feature'

otherwise, mdadm supports raid1 with more than 2 drives. I havent seen
this configuration much but it makes absolute sense on drives where
you expect failure. (i am not speaking spare, but really raid1 with >
2 drives).

I like this setup, with ssd drives it might be the solution to decay.

regs,
klaus

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2011-07-21 11:16:24 Intel 320 series drives firmware bug
Previous Message Andrzej Nakonieczny 2011-07-20 19:33:53 Re: Large rows number, and large objects