Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD31BB5DBCC for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:47:18 -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 66776-09 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:47:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx01.bfk.de (mx01.bfk.de [193.227.124.2]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75213B5DBD1 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:47:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mx00.int.bfk.de ([10.119.110.2]) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1Qj7pT-0008G8-Ap; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:47:07 +0000 Received: by bfk.de with local id 1Qj7pT-0002JK-63; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:47:07 +0000 From: Florian Weimer To: Yeb Havinga Cc: Andy , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: BBU still needed with SSD? References: <1310953399.25726.YahooMailClassic@web111304.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E23E72B.2070508@gmail.com> <82vcuyd7p5.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4E255DF9.20005@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:47:07 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4E255DF9.20005@gmail.com> (Yeb Havinga's message of "Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:35:37 +0200") Message-ID: <82y5zubl90.fsf@mid.bfk.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.035 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.135 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201107/191 X-Sequence-Number: 44403 * Yeb Havinga: > 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? Yes, it is. It's a mixed blessing because judging by the values, one of the drives wears down pretty quickly. > Maybe it is caused by the initial build of the array? But then a 7% > difference seems like an awful lot. Both drives a supposedly fresh from the factory, and they started with the wearout indicator at 100. The initial build should write just zeros, and I would expect the drive firmware to recognize that. I've got a second system against which I could run the same test. I wonder if it is reproducible. > It would be interesting to see if the drives also show total xyz > written, and if that differs a lot too. Do you know how to check that with smartctl? --=20 Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra=DFe 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99