| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reliability with RAID 10 SSD and Streaming Replication |
| Date: | 2013-05-22 19:06:50 |
| Message-ID: | 519D174A.4050703@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 05/22/2013 11:06 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> I have some moderately fast SSD based transactional systems that are
> still using traditional drives with battery-backed cache for the
> sequential writes of the WAL volume, where the data volume is on Intel
> 710 disks. WAL writes really burn through flash cells, too, so keeping
> them on traditional drives can be cost effective in a few ways. That
> approach is lucky to hit 10K TPS though, so it can't compete against
> what a PCI-E card like the FusionIO drives are capable of.
Greg, can you elaborate on the SSD + Xlog issue? What type of burn
through are we talking about?
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2013-05-22 19:30:30 | Re: Reliability with RAID 10 SSD and Streaming Replication |
| Previous Message | Shaun Thomas | 2013-05-22 18:45:06 | Re: Reliability with RAID 10 SSD and Streaming Replication |