From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SSD + RAID |
Date: | 2010-02-23 02:21:40 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d11002221821p773906a5hf3d3ffaf39bbddc6@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Mark Mielke wrote:
>>
>> I had read the above when posted, and then looked up SRAM. SRAM seems to
>> suggest it will hold the data even after power loss, but only for a period
>> of time. As long as power can restore within a few minutes, it seemed like
>> this would be ok?
>
> The normal type of RAM everyone uses is DRAM, which requires constrant
> "refresh" cycles to keep it working and is pretty power hungry as a result.
> Power gone, data gone an instant later.
Actually, oddly enough, per bit stored dram is much lower power usage
than sram, because it only has something like 2 transistors per bit,
while sram needs something like 4 or 5 (it's been a couple decades
since I took the classes on each). Even with the constant refresh,
dram has a lower power draw than sram.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-02-23 02:22:56 | Re: SSD + RAID |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-02-23 01:39:33 | Re: SSD + RAID |