| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andy <angelflow(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, David Rees <drees76(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BBU still needed with SSD? |
| Date: | 2011-07-19 01:59:56 |
| Message-ID: | 201107190159.p6J1xuT07770@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Andy wrote:
>
>
> --- On Mon, 7/18/11, David Rees <drees76(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > >> In this case is BBU still needed? If I put 2 SSD
> > in software RAID 1, would
> > >> that be any slower than 2 SSD in HW RAID 1 with
> > BBU? What are the pros and
> > >> cons?
> >
> > What will perform better will vary greatly depending on the
> > exact
> > SSDs, rotating disks, RAID BBU controller and
> > application.? But
> > certainly a couple of Intel 320s in RAID1 seem to be an
> > inexpensive
> > way of getting very good performance while maintaining
> > reliability.
>
> I'm not comparing SSD in SW RAID with rotating disks in HW RAID with
> BBU though. I'm just comparing SSDs with or without BBU. I'm going to
> get a couple of Intel 320s, just want to know if BBU makes sense for
> them.
Yes, it certainly does, even if you have a RAID BBU.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | M. D. | 2011-07-19 03:25:25 | Re: cpu comparison |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-07-19 01:38:34 | Re: cpu comparison |