| From: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Patvs <patvs(at)chello(dot)nl>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Six PostgreSQL questions from a pokerplayer |
| Date: | 2009-07-06 08:47:08 |
| Message-ID: | C677081C.956D%scott@richrelevance.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 7/6/09 1:43 AM, "Scott Carey" <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/09 11:13 PM, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:
>
>> Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 11:51 -0700, Patvs wrote:
>>>
> There is no reason to go RAID 1 with SSD's if this is an end-user box and
> the data is recoverable. Unlike a hard drive, a decent SSD isn't expected
> to go bad.
Clarification -- normal hard drives are expected to have a chance of dying
within the first few months, or days. SSD's are expected to wear down
slowly and die eventually -- but better ones will do so by entering a
read-only state.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-07-06 09:40:19 | Re: Six PostgreSQL questions from a pokerplayer |
| Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2009-07-06 08:43:01 | Re: Six PostgreSQL questions from a pokerplayer |