Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C30B5DBF2 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:16:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81239-01 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:16:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.8]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCAAFB5DBBF for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:16:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lx7w9-1RUa122dtR-016eKC; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:16:26 +0200 Message-ID: <4E280A88.2020601@2ndQuadrant.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:16:24 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Intel 320 series drives firmware bug Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:BkJunn1n2wyGuSEDB9APJY26CZDqyDkuh4D5aNmUgbI 9nL5YuuYoV1jgM5sJTirw/eul1o02V3fi+u/wRPbiMLN4h8VDd tSIMg0FGP4qkOeFX7xT3b5D6/BtXn7xgLXPA9sLKdcElT9c2p8 MFY87VLByj/KSlbsWD/ruhia3ofD+hEn81zDHxjrs0k/jKSd98 Iaunx5engUYqe+teDTJWvnZerPN95RLCsGHCrYfdsg= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201107/204 X-Sequence-Number: 44416 As one of the people recommending early investigation of Intel's recent 320 series drives, I've been following the news around them too. It looks like there's one serious firmware bug that shows up on these so far, what's being called the "8MB bug". Basically, under some conditions, the drive comes back from a restart believing it's only 8MB in size. Very bad. In the discussion forum where this been highlighted: http://communities.intel.com/message/131328 the largest data point I noticed said that a large deployment has had 7 out of their 600 320 drive deployments go bad in this way, so 1.2%. Another report says 13 out of their 64 systems are dead now. You did never even consider deploying this drive unless it was with RAID-1 and good real-time backups, right? Hopefully everyone knows by now that the V1 of any hardware should sit in QA for a while to shake out issues like this before you move production onto it, and this one seems to be the big bug in this design. It seems like a firmware bug that an update will fix, not a more serious design issue, so I'm not too concerned about it yet. http://communities.intel.com/thread/23217 is where the official commentary on the resolution is being posted to. P.S. they have increased the warranty on these drives to 5 years, before this all happened, so Intel has made a large bet on this model working as advertised: http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2011/05/19/chip-shot-new-5-year-limited-warranty-on-intel-ssd-320 We just need to figure out how/where they're drawing the "enterprise usage levels" line at. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD