Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4841ED23D7
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:15:35 -0400 (AST)
Received: from news.hub.org ([200.46.204.72])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <news@news.hub.org>) id 1RStwU-00067h-I6
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:15:35 +0000
Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72])
	by news.hub.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAMHFLpD057850
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:15:21 -0400 (AST)
	(envelope-from news@news.hub.org)
Received: (from news@localhost)
	by news.hub.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id pAMGxInR039515
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
	Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:59:18 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news)
From: Edgardo Portal <egportal2002@yahoo.com>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance
Subject: Re: SSD endurance calculations
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:59:17 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <jagkd5$ab1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <zarafa.4ecabcb2.0527.762392872b021f28@meel.technocon.local>
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:59:17 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
	posting-host="gkhyaanA3O+9spDy+Syqag";
	logging-data="10593"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19XRVkjYTW0NsYFVapxV+AQ5t1IqRsFxRY="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9+qVGXbDwLyDL29S8JLwxcWtu7Y=
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 201111/263
X-Sequence-Number: 45774

On 2011-11-21, Christiaan Willemsen <cwillemsen@technocon.com> wrote:
>We=
>  are looking at beefing up our servers with SSD&#39;s. Some of you did so=
> me interesting tests with the Intel 320. So the idea came to make a RAID1=
> 0 with four 600GB models.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I did however do some calcul=
> ations with the current database server (220GB database, expected to grow=
>  to 1TB by the end of next year). I specifically looked at /proc/diskstat=
>  at the read/write figures. From there I could see a read/write ratio of =
> 3:1, and I also saw a wopping 170GB of writes per day (for a database tha=
> t currently grows 1GB per dag). That seems like an insanely high figure t=
> o me! How come=3F We do mostly inserts, hardly any updates, virtually no =
> deletes.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Secondly, I also looked at the reliability fi=
> gures of the Intel 320. They show 5 years of 20GB per day, meaning that i=
> t will hold up for about 200 days in our system. RAID 10 wil make 400 day=
> s of that, but this seems hardly a lot.. Am I missing something here=3F</=
> p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Kind regards,</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Christiaan</p><div><p =
> style=3D"font-family: monospace; ">&nbsp;</p></div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;=
></p>=0A</body>=0A</html>

Is your WAL on a separate disk (or set of disks)?

Also, not sure you can fairly conclude that "RAID 10 will make 400 days
of that" -- I had read some posts here a few months back suggesting
that SSDs have been observed to fail very close to each
other in time in a RAID configuration.