From: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
Cc: Andy <angelflow@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BBU still needed with SSD?
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:35:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4E255DF9.20005@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <82vcuyd7p5.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
References: <1310953399.25726.YahooMailClassic@web111304.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
<4E23E72B.2070508@gmail.com>
<82vcuyd7p5.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
On 2011-07-19 09:56, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Yeb Havinga:
>
>> The biggest drawback of 2 SSD's with supercap in hardware raid 1, is
>> that if they are both new and of the same model/firmware, they'd
>> probably reach the end of their write cycles at the same time, thereby
>> failing simultaneously.
> I thought so too, but I've got two Intel 320s (I suppose, the report
> device model is "SSDSA2CT040G3") in a RAID 1 configuration, and after
> about a month of testing, one is down to 89 on the media wearout
> indicator, and the other is still at 96. Both devices are
> deteriorating, but one at a significantly faster rate.
That's great news if this turns out to be generally true. Is it on mdadm
software raid?
I searched a bit in the mdadm manual for reasons this can be the case.
It isn't the occasional check (echo check >
/sys/block/md0/md/sync_action) since that seems to do two reads and
compare. Another idea was that the layout of the mirror might not be
different, but the manual says that the --layout configuration directive
is only for RAID 5,6 and 10, but not RAID 1. Then my eye caught
--write-behind, the maximum number of outstanding writes and it has a
non-zero default value, but is only done if a drive is marked write-mostly.
Maybe it is caused by the initial build of the array? But then a 7%
difference seems like an awful lot.
It would be interesting to see if the drives also show total xyz
written, and if that differs a lot too.
regards,
Yeb Havinga
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: yebhavinga@gmail.com, fweimer@bfk.de, angelflow@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: BBU still needed with SSD?
In-Reply-To: <4E255DF9.20005@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox