From: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2010-08-12 23:40:11 |
Message-ID: | FEDD0586-54B5-4F42-94AF-ACB3D89075E8@richrelevance.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Aug 11, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Scott Carey wrote:
>> What is the likelihood that your RAID card fails, or that the battery that reported 'good health' only lasts 5 minutes and you lose data before power is restored? What is the likelihood of human error?
>>
>
> These are all things that happen sometimes, sure. The problem with the
> cheap SSDs is that they happen downright often if you actually test for
> it. If someone is aware of the risk and makes an informed decision,
> fine. But most of the time I see articles like the one that started
> this thread that are oblivious to the issue, and that's really bad.
>
Agreed. There is a HUGE gap between "ooh ssd's are fast, look!" and engineering a solution that uses them properly with all their strengths and faults. And as 'gnuoytr' points out, there is a big difference between an Intel SSD and say, this thing: http://www.nimbusdata.com/products/s-class_overview.html
> --
> Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Arjen van der Meijden | 2010-08-13 05:59:29 | Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD |
Previous Message | Carlo Stonebanks | 2010-08-12 21:47:30 | Very bad plan when using VIEW and IN (SELECT...*) |