Re: SSD performance

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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