| From: | James Cloos <cloos(at)jhcloos(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, flyusa2010 fly <flyusa2010(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | XLog vs SSD [Was: Re: random write in xlog?] |
| Date: | 2010-12-08 20:15:18 |
| Message-ID: | m3d3pcyqa9.fsf_-_@jhcloos.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "JJ" == Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
JJ> Anyway, the writes are logically sequentially, but not physically.
JJ> If I remember correctly, it always writes out full blocks, even if
JJ> the last part of the block has not yet been filled with new data.
JJ> When the remainder gets filled, it then writes out the full block
JJ> again, both the already written and the new part.
What does that mean for use of a flash SSD for the xlog dir?
Does the block writing mesh up well with the usage pattern a flash
SSD needs to maximize lifespan?
I'd love a dram ssd for pg_xlog and the journals for the other
filesystems, but they cost too much.
-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos(at)jhcloos(dot)com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-12-08 20:18:16 | Re: Review: Extensions Patch |
| Previous Message | Kineticode Billing | 2010-12-08 20:12:50 | Re: unlogged tables |