Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net>
Cc: Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, Michael March <mmarch(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD
Date: 2010-08-10 18:23:22
Message-ID: AANLkTi=pehZj1Bb8KVusGykyEzWn__pif-87Tz2beJYj@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> wrote:

> ANY disk that says "write is complete" when it really is not is entirely
> unsuitable for ANY real database use.  It is simply a matter of time

What about read only slaves where there's a master with 100+spinning
hard drives "getting it right" and you need a half dozen or so read
slaves? I can imagine that being ok, as long as you don't restart a
server after a crash without checking on it.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-08-10 18:28:31 Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD
Previous Message Karl Denninger 2010-08-10 18:13:47 Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD