Обсуждение: Disk corruption detection
We recently had a partially failed disk in a RAID-1 configuration which did not perform a write operation as requested. Consequently, the mirrored disks had different contents, and the file which contained the block switched randomly between two copies, depending on which disk had been read. (In theory, it is possible to read always from both disks, but this is not what RAID-1 configurations normally do.) Anyway, how would be the chances for PostgreSQL to detect such a corruption on a heap or index data file? It's typically hard to detect this at the application level, so I don't expect wonders. I'm just curious if using PostgreSQL would have helped to catch this sooner.
"Florian Weimer" <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote > > Anyway, how would be the chances for PostgreSQL to detect such a > corruption on a heap or index data file? It's typically hard to > detect this at the application level, so I don't expect wonders. I'm > just curious if using PostgreSQL would have helped to catch this > sooner. > PostgreSQL will only detect these corruption when it uses that heap or index page. So a safe way to is to dump/restore your database if you suspect there is some inconsistency happened. Regards, Qingqing
At 07:42 PM 6/11/2006 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >We recently had a partially failed disk in a RAID-1 configuration >which did not perform a write operation as requested. Consequently, What RAID1 config/hardware/software was this? Could be good to know... Regards, Link.
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > We recently had a partially failed disk in a RAID-1 configuration > which did not perform a write operation as requested. Consequently, > the mirrored disks had different contents, and the file which > contained the block switched randomly between two copies, depending on > which disk had been read. (In theory, it is possible to read always > from both disks, but this is not what RAID-1 configurations normally > do.) Actually, every RAID1 I've ever used will read from both to try and balance out the load. > Anyway, how would be the chances for PostgreSQL to detect such a > corruption on a heap or index data file? It's typically hard to > detect this at the application level, so I don't expect wonders. I'm > just curious if using PostgreSQL would have helped to catch this > sooner. I know that WAL pages are (or at least were) CRC'd, because there was extensive discussion around 32 bit vs 64 bit CRCs. There is no such check for data pages, although PostgreSQL has other ways to detect errors. But in a nutshell, if you care about your data, buy hardware you can trust. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
* Lincoln Yeoh: > At 07:42 PM 6/11/2006 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>We recently had a partially failed disk in a RAID-1 configuration >>which did not perform a write operation as requested. Consequently, > > What RAID1 config/hardware/software was this? I would expect that any RAID-1 controller works in this mode by default. It's an analogy to RAID-5: In that case, you clearly can't verify the parity bits on read for performance reasons. So why do it for RAID-1? (If there is a controller which offers compare-on-read for RAID-1, I would like to know it's name. 8-)
* Jim C. Nasby: >> Anyway, how would be the chances for PostgreSQL to detect such a >> corruption on a heap or index data file? It's typically hard to >> detect this at the application level, so I don't expect wonders. I'm >> just curious if using PostgreSQL would have helped to catch this >> sooner. > > I know that WAL pages are (or at least were) CRC'd, because there was > extensive discussion around 32 bit vs 64 bit CRCs. CRCs wouldn't help because the out-of-date copy has got a correct CRC. That's why it's so hard to detect this problem at the application level. Putting redundancy into rows doesn't help, for instance. > There is no such check for data pages, although PostgreSQL has other > ways to detect errors. But in a nutshell, if you care about your > data, buy hardware you can trust. All hardware can fail. 8-/ AFAIK, compare-on-read is the recommend measure to compensate for this kind of failure. (The traditional recommendation also includes three disks, so that you've got a tie-breaker.) It seems to me that PostgreSQL's MVCC-related "don't directly overwrite data rows" policy might help to expose this sooner than with direct B-tree updates. In this particular case, we would have avoided the failure if we properly monitored the disk subsystem (the failure was gradual). Fortunately, it was just a test system, but it got me woried a bit.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 07:55:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Jim C. Nasby: > > >> Anyway, how would be the chances for PostgreSQL to detect such a > >> corruption on a heap or index data file? It's typically hard to > >> detect this at the application level, so I don't expect wonders. I'm > >> just curious if using PostgreSQL would have helped to catch this > >> sooner. > > > > I know that WAL pages are (or at least were) CRC'd, because there was > > extensive discussion around 32 bit vs 64 bit CRCs. > > CRCs wouldn't help because the out-of-date copy has got a correct CRC. > That's why it's so hard to detect this problem at the application > level. Putting redundancy into rows doesn't help, for instance. > > > There is no such check for data pages, although PostgreSQL has other > > ways to detect errors. But in a nutshell, if you care about your > > data, buy hardware you can trust. > > All hardware can fail. 8-/ I'd argue that any raid controller that carries on without degrading the array even though it's getting write errors isn't worth the fiberglass the components are soldered to. Same thing if it's a HD that can't write something and doesn't throw an error back up the chain. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461