| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Graeme B(dot) Bell" <graeme(dot)bell(at)nibio(dot)no> |
| Cc: | Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com>, "hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "Wes Vaske (wvaske)" <wvaske(at)micron(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New server: SSD/RAID recommendations? |
| Date: | 2015-07-07 17:47:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=2kAOKrZoD135n1+AKhw4iOjyhjA3WEsEQodXj_KJCuiA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Graeme B. Bell <graeme(dot)bell(at)nibio(dot)no> wrote:
>
> The comment on HDDs is true and gave me another thought.
>
> These new 'shingled' HDDs (the 8TB ones) rely on rewriting all the data on tracks that overlap your data, any time you change the data. Result: disks 8-20x slower during writes, after they fill up.
>
> Do they have power loss protection for the data being rewritten during reshingling? You could have data commited at position X and you accidentally nuke data at position Y.
>
> [I know that using a shingled disk sounds crazy (it sounds crazy to me) but you can bet there are people that just want to max out the disk bays in their server... ]
Let's just say no online backup companies are using those disks. :)
Biggest current production spinners being used I know of are 4TB,
non-shingled.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Graeme B. Bell | 2015-07-07 17:58:04 | Re: New server: SSD/RAID recommendations? |
| Previous Message | Graeme B. Bell | 2015-07-07 17:43:24 | Re: New server: SSD/RAID recommendations? |