On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote: > On 30 Červenec 2014, 5:12, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Explained here: >> https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/fast13/fast13-final80.pdf >> >> 13 out of 15 tested SSD's had various kinds of corruption on a power-out. >> >> (thanks, Neil!) > > Well, only four of the devices supposedly had a power-loss protection > (battery, capacitor, ...) so I guess it's not really that surprising the > remaining 11 devices failed in a test like this. Although it really > shouldn't damage the device, as apparently happened during the tests. > > Too bad they haven't mentioned which SSDs they've been testing > specifically. While I understand the reason for that (HP Labs can't just > point at products from other companies), it significantly limits the > usefulness of the study. Too many companies are producing crappy > consumer-level devices, advertising them as "enterprise". I could name a > few ... > > Maybe it could be deciphered using the information in the paper > (power-loss protection, year of release, ...). > > I'd expect to see Intel 320/710 to see there, but that seems not to be the > case, because those devices were released in 2011 and all the four devices > with power-loss protection have year=2012. Or maybe it's the year when > that particular device was manufactured?
Take a look here: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/12/27/208249/power-loss-protected-ssds-tested-only-intel-s3500-passes "Only the end-of-lifed Intel 320 and its newer replacement, the S3500, survived unscathed. The conclusion: if you care about data even when power could be unreliable, only buy Intel SSDs."" merlin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
