| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net>, Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSD + RAID |
| Date: | 2009-11-19 14:49:08 |
| Message-ID: | 4B055AE4.2040102@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Scott Carey wrote:
> Moral of the story: Nothing is 100% safe, so sometimes a small bit of KNOWN
> risk is perfectly fine. There is always UNKNOWN risk. If one risks losing
> 256K of cached data on an SSD if you're really unlucky with timing, how
> dangerous is that versus the chance that the raid card or other hardware
> barfs and takes out your whole WAL?
>
I think the point of the paranoia in this thread is that if you're
introducing a component with a known risk in it, you're really asking
for trouble because (as you point out) it's hard enough to keep a system
running just through the unexpected ones that shouldn't have happened at
all. No need to make that even harder by introducing something that is
*known* to fail under some conditions.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-11-19 17:01:20 | Re: SSD + RAID |
| Previous Message | Karl Denninger | 2009-11-19 14:44:58 | Re: SSD + RAID |