Re: SSDs with Postgresql?
От | Henry C. |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SSDs with Postgresql? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2d9a4e2e660ba58bd1ea4039aedb2d43.squirrel@zenmail.co.za обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SSDs with Postgresql? (Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: SSDs with Postgresql?
Re: SSDs with Postgresql? Re: SSDs with Postgresql? |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, April 14, 2011 10:51, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 14/04/2011 4:35 PM, Henry C. wrote: > > >> There is no going back. Hint: don't use cheap SSDs - cough up and use >> Intel. >> > > The server-grade SLC stuff with a supercap, I hope, not the scary > consumer-oriented MLC "pray you weren't writing anything during power-loss" > devices? That's what a UPS and genset are for. Who writes critical stuff to *any* drive without power backup? You have a valid point about using SLC if that's what you need though. However, MLC works just fine provided you stick them into RAID1. In fact, we use a bunch of them in RAID0 on top of RAID1. In our environment (clusters) it's all about using cheap consumer-grade commodity hardware with lots of redundancy to cater for the inevitable failures. The trade-off is huge: performance with low cost. We've been using MLC intel drives since they came out and have never had a failure. Other SSDs we've tried have failed, and so have hard drives. The point though, is that there are tremendous performance gains to be had with commodity h/w if you factor in failure rates and make *sure* you have redundancy. h
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: