| From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, sthomas(at)optionshouse(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: | 2013-05-23 02:26:28 |
| Message-ID: | 519D7E54.4000806@catalyst.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 23/05/13 14:22, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 5/22/13 10:04 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> Make that quite a few capacitors (top right corner):
>> http://regmedia.co.uk/2013/05/07/m500_4.jpg
>
> There are some more shots and descriptions of the internals in the
> excellent review at
> http://techreport.com/review/24666/crucial-m500-ssd-reviewed
>
> That also highlights the big problem with this drive that's kept me
> from buying one so far:
>
> "Unlike rivals Intel and Samsung, Crucial doesn't provide utility
> software with a built-in health indicator. The M500's payload of SMART
> attributes doesn't contain any references to flash wear or bytes
> written, either. Several of the SMART attributes are labeled
> "Vendor-specific," but you'll need to guess what they track and read
> the associated values using third-party software."
>
> That's a serious problem for most business use of this sort of drive.
>
Agreed - I was thinking the same thing!
Cheers
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2013-05-23 02:44:18 | Re: Reliability with RAID 10 SSD and Streaming Replication |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2013-05-23 02:22:24 | Re: Reliability with RAID 10 SSD and Streaming Replication |
