From: | James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tony Nagy <tony(at)shopzeus(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Planning a new server - help needed |
Date: | 2008-03-29 16:47:53 |
Message-ID: | 47EE72B9.1000507@mansionfamily.plus.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
PFC wrote:
>
>> Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
>> and generally slower performance.'?
>
> More platters -> more heads -> heavier head assembly -> slower
> seek time
Note sure I've sen a lot of evidence of that in drive specifications!
> Gigabyte should revamp their i-RAM to use ECC RAM of a larger
> capacity... and longer lasting battery backup...
You would think a decent capacitor or rechargable button battery would
be enough to dump it to a flash memory.
No problem with flash wear then.
> I wonder, how many write cycles those Flash drives can take before
> reliability becomes a problem...
Hard to get data isn't it? I believe its hundreds of thousands to
millions now. Now each record in most OLTP
tables is rewritten a few times unless its stuff that can go into temp
tables etc, which should be elsewhere.
Index pages clearly get rewritten often.
I suspect a mix of storage technologies will be handy for some time yet
- WAL on disk, and temp tables on
disk with no synchronous fsync requirement.
I think life is about to get interesting in DBMS storage. All good for
us users.
James
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-03-29 23:49:05 | Re: Planning a new server - help needed |
Previous Message | PFC | 2008-03-29 13:57:28 | Re: Planning a new server - help needed |