Re: SSDs with Postgresql?

From: "Henry C(dot)" <henka(at)cityweb(dot)co(dot)za>
To: "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSDs with Postgresql?
Date: 2011-04-14 09:40:57
Message-ID: 2d9a4e2e660ba58bd1ea4039aedb2d43.squirrel@zenmail.co.za
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Henry C. 2011-04-14 09:46:12 Re: SSDs with Postgresql?
Previous Message Arnaud Lesauvage 2011-04-14 09:37:39 Re: SSDs with Postgresql?