| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Gregg Jaskiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Niels Kristian Schjødt <nielskristian(at)autouncle(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New server setup |
| Date: | 2013-03-14 22:34:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20130314223449.GE28770@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:37:55AM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 15/03/13 07:54, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >Only use SSDs with a BBU cache, and don't set SSD caches to
> >write-through because an SSD needs to cache the write to avoid wearing
> >out the chips early, see:
> >
> > http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2012.html#August_3_2012
> >
>
> I not convinced about the need for BBU with SSD - you *can* use them
> without one, just need to make sure about suitable longevity and
> also the presence of (proven) power off protection (as discussed
> previously). It is worth noting that using unproven or SSD known to
> be lacking power off protection with a BBU will *not* save you from
> massive corruption (or device failure) upon unexpected power loss.
I don't think any drive that corrupts on power-off is suitable for a
database, but for non-db uses, sure, I guess they are OK, though you
have to be pretty money-constrainted to like that tradeoff.
--
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 | Mark Kirkwood | 2013-03-14 22:53:37 | Re: New server setup |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2013-03-14 21:47:07 | Re: New server setup |