Well the results are finally in. Hopefully we can concentrate on putting
them right, rather than having a round of "told you so's" :-)

I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency checks.
The updated version is attached.

Regards, Dave.

System
======

Gigabyte GA-6VTXD Motherboard
Dual 1GHz PIII Processors
1Gb Non-ECC RAM
Fujitsu MPG3240AH IDE Disk Drive

Enhanced IDE Performance disabled in the BIOS.

Test
====

Test program run from a seperate machine.
20 Tests per OS.
Powerfail randomly applied.


Windows 2000 Testing
====================

Write back cache on IDE disk disabled.
Clean installation of Windows 2000 Server with Service Pack 3

Run | Errors Detected
=============================================================
 01 | None
 02 | None
 03 | None
 04 | None
 05 | None
 06 | None
 07 | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (10262)!!
 08 | None
 09 | DISTINCT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (9893)!!
    | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (9893)!!
 10 | None
 11 | None
 12 | None
 13 | None
 14 | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (10024)!!
 15 | None
 16 | None
 17 | None
 18 | None
 19 | None
 20 | None

Linux Testing
=============

Clean installation of Slackware Linux 8.1 on ext3
Kernel 2.4.18

Run | Errors Detected
=============================================================
 01 | None
 02 | None
 03 | None
 04 | None
 05 | None
 06 | None
 07 | None
 08 | None
 09 | None
 10 | None
 11 | None
 12 | None
 13 | None
 14 | None
 15 | None
 16 | None
 17 | None
 18 | None
 19 | None
 20 | None
Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:51:33 -0000
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Win32 Powerfail testing - results
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Dave Page wrote:

> Well the results are finally in. Hopefully we can concentrate on putting
> them right, rather than having a round of "told you so's" :-)
>
> I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency checks.
> The updated version is attached.

[...]

>
> Run | Errors Detected
> =============================================================
>  07 | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (10262)!!
>  09 | DISTINCT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (9893)!!
>     | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (9893)!!
>  14 | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (10024)!!

Out of curiousity, what was required to return things to normal
again?

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.


Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:20:13 -0500 (EST)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results
> I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency checks.
> The updated version is attached.

For curiosity sake, I've compiled it and am running it on FreeBSD with
soft-updates enabled.

A few variable declarations needed to be bumped up to the top of their
respective function.

Any change of tossing in a periodic VACUUM or would that throw off the
results?


-- 
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
03 Feb 2003 13:34:20 -0500
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results
 Vince Vielhaber allegedly said:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> Run | Errors Detected
>> =============================================================
>>  07 | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (10262)!! 09 |
>>  DISTINCT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (9893)!!
>>     | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (9893)!!
>>  14 | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (10024)!!
>
> Out of curiousity, what was required to return things to normal
> again?

I ran the test app in reset mode which drops the table, then re-creates it
and populates it with fresh data. I thought it best to drop first to
eliminate possible problems with corrupt, but invisible tuples (if such a
thing could have occured).
Regards, Dave.



Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:54:15 -0000 (GMT)
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results
 Rod Taylor allegedly said:
>> I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency
>> checks. The updated version is attached.
>
> For curiosity sake, I've compiled it and am running it on FreeBSD with
> soft-updates enabled.
>
> A few variable declarations needed to be bumped up to the top of their
> respective function.

I've been doing a fair bit of C++ recently...

> Any change of tossing in a periodic VACUUM or would that throw off the
> results?

Dunno, Tom could best answer that, but a *complete guess* based on piecing
together tidbits of how it all works from various threads here, would be
that it would merely increase the time period during which a powerfail
would be unlikely to cause duplicate rows. Reasoning for this is that
vacuum would be messing with tuples that are already dead.
Please correct me if I'm wrong :-)

Regards, Dave.



Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:06:45 -0000 (GMT)
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
>  Rod Taylor allegedly said:
>> Any change of tossing in a periodic VACUUM or would that throw off the
>> results?

> Dunno, Tom could best answer that, but a *complete guess* based on piecing
> together tidbits of how it all works from various threads here, would be
> that it would merely increase the time period during which a powerfail
> would be unlikely to cause duplicate rows. Reasoning for this is that
> vacuum would be messing with tuples that are already dead.

I think it'd be interesting to try it both ways.  VACUUM might throw in
new failure modes.  I'm not sure if it could mask the failure mode you
already found.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:52:14 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results 
Dave Page kirjutas E, 03.02.2003 kell 18:51:
> Well the results are finally in. Hopefully we can concentrate on putting
> them right, rather than having a round of "told you so's" :-)
> 
> I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency checks.
> The updated version is attached.
> 
> Regards, Dave.
> 
> System
> ======
> 
> Gigabyte GA-6VTXD Motherboard
> Dual 1GHz PIII Processors
> 1Gb Non-ECC RAM
> Fujitsu MPG3240AH IDE Disk Drive
> 
> Enhanced IDE Performance disabled in the BIOS.
> 
> Test
> ====
> 
> Test program run from a seperate machine.
> 20 Tests per OS.
> Powerfail randomly applied.

Your hardware should also be able to run Postgres on BeOS

http://www.bebits.com/app/2752

Being the only non-unix "port" before/besides win32, it could be an
interesting excercise.

You should be able to get and installable BeOS itself from SourceForge

http://sourceforge.net/projects/crux/

> Windows 2000 Testing
> ====================

Is this NTFS ?

Any possibility of trying the same tests with SCSI disks ?

> Write back cache on IDE disk disabled.
> Clean installation of Windows 2000 Server with Service Pack 3
> 
> Run | Errors Detected
> =============================================================
>  01 | None
>  02 | None
>  03 | None
>  04 | None
>  05 | None
>  06 | None
>  07 | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (10262)!!
>  08 | None
>  09 | DISTINCT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (9893)!!

I remember having problems with UNIQUE columns having duplicate values a
few versions back on Linux-ext2-IDE. Could this be the same problem or
must it be something completely different ?

>     | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (9893)!!
>  10 | None
>  11 | None
>  12 | None
>  13 | None
>  14 | COUNT CHECK - Duplicate or missing rows detected (10024)!!
>  15 | None
>  16 | None
>  17 | None
>  18 | None
>  19 | None
>  20 | None
> 
> Linux Testing
> =============
> 
> Clean installation of Slackware Linux 8.1 on ext3
> Kernel 2.4.18
> 
> Run | Errors Detected
> =============================================================
>  01 | None
> ...
>  20 | None

BTW, are the tests portable enough to run also on MSSQL, Oracle and DB2
?

I know that you can't publish exact results, but perhaps something like
the GreatBridge results - the one that runs only on Win32 did so-and-so,
the one that has 'i' at the end of version number this, and the one
whose name consists of two letters and a number did that ?

-- 
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>

04 Feb 2003 00:29:51 +0200
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results