Re: Reports from SSD purgatory

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:49:52 -0400
>From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org (on behalf of Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>)
>Subject: [PERFORM] Reports from SSD purgatory
>To: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
>
>News update for anyone else who's trapped like me, waiting for a fix to
>the Intel 320 SSD bug where they can truncate themselves to 8MB. Over
>the weekend Intel has announced a firmware fix for the problem is done,
>and is due to ship "within the next two weeks":
>http://communities.intel.com/thread/24121
>
>On the larger SSD reliability front, Tom's Hardware surveyed heavy SSD
>users they're friendly with who use Intel drives. The most interesting
>data came from Softlayer:
>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923-6.html
>
>This supports two claims I made before based on my private data that
>were controversial:
>
>-Annualized SSD failure rates are not significantly lower than
>traditional drives in the first couple of years. Jury is still out on
>whether they will spike upwards starting at 3 years as mechanical ones do.
>
>-The most common source of dead drives is sudden, catastrophic
>electronics failure. These are not predicted by SMART, and have nothing
>to do with hitting the drive's wear limits.

It's worth knowing exactly what that means. Turns out that NAND quality is price specific. There's gooduns and baduns. Is this a failure in the controller(s) or the NAND?

Also, given that PG is *nix centric and support for TRIM is win centric, having that makes a big difference in performance.

>
>--
>Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
>PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
>
>
>--
>Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>To make changes to your subscription:
>http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance