From: | "Henry C(dot)" <henka(at)cityweb(dot)co(dot)za> |
---|---|
To: | "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SSDs with Postgresql? |
Date: | 2011-04-14 09:40:57 |
Message-ID: | 2d9a4e2e660ba58bd1ea4039aedb2d43.squirrel@zenmail.co.za |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, April 14, 2011 10:51, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 14/04/2011 4:35 PM, Henry C. wrote:
>
>
>> There is no going back. Hint: don't use cheap SSDs - cough up and use
>> Intel.
>>
>
> The server-grade SLC stuff with a supercap, I hope, not the scary
> consumer-oriented MLC "pray you weren't writing anything during power-loss"
> devices?
That's what a UPS and genset are for. Who writes critical stuff to *any*
drive without power backup?
You have a valid point about using SLC if that's what you need though.
However, MLC works just fine provided you stick them into RAID1. In fact, we
use a bunch of them in RAID0 on top of RAID1.
In our environment (clusters) it's all about using cheap consumer-grade
commodity hardware with lots of redundancy to cater for the inevitable
failures. The trade-off is huge: performance with low cost.
We've been using MLC intel drives since they came out and have never had a
failure. Other SSDs we've tried have failed, and so have hard drives. The
point though, is that there are tremendous performance gains to be had with
commodity h/w if you factor in failure rates and make *sure* you have
redundancy.
h
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Henry C. | 2011-04-14 09:46:12 | Re: SSDs with Postgresql? |
Previous Message | Arnaud Lesauvage | 2011-04-14 09:37:39 | Re: SSDs with Postgresql? |