Re: BBU still needed with SSD?

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andy <angelflow(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BBU still needed with SSD?
Date: 2011-07-19 00:39:57
Message-ID: 4E24D25D.6080809@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Andy wrote:
> SSD has its own cache. And in certain models such as Intel 320 that cache is backed by capacitors. So in a sense that cache acts as a BBU that's backed by capacitors instead of batteries.
>

Tests I did on the 320 series says it works fine:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4D9D1FC3.4020207@2ndQuadrant.com

And there's a larger discussion of this topic at
http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/en/2011/04/intel-ssd-now-off-the-sherr-sh.html
that answers this question in a bit more detail.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2011-07-19 00:47:05 Re: cpu comparison
Previous Message David Rees 2011-07-18 23:37:13 Re: BBU still needed with SSD?