From: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SSD performance |
Date: | 2009-02-20 15:26:43 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.00.0902201523240.22170@aragorn.flymine.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Scott Carey wrote:
> For anyone worried about the X 25–M’s ability to withstand lots of write
> cycles ... Calculate how long it would take you to write 800TB to the
> drive at a typical rate. For most use cases that’s going to be > 5
> years. For the 160GB version, it will take 2x as much data and time to
> wear it down.
This article just came out:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/20/intel_x25emmental/
and
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=669
It seems that the performance of the X25-M degrades over time, as the
write levelling algorithm fragments the device into little bits.
Especially under database-like access patterns.
Matthew
--
I quite understand I'm doing algebra on the blackboard and the usual response
is to throw objects... If you're going to freak out... wait until party time
and invite me along -- Computer Science Lecturer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-20 15:33:53 | Re: not in(subselect) in 8.4 |
Previous Message | Sergio Lopez | 2009-02-20 11:28:55 | Benchmark comparing PostgreSQL, MySQL and Oracle |