| From: | Justin Pitts <justinpitts(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
| Cc: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>, PostgreSQL - Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Testing FusionIO |
| Date: | 2010-03-17 13:52:26 |
| Message-ID: | 82964EE9-2507-4DB0-83A9-30DCCBBAE274@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
FusionIO is publicly claiming 24 years @ 5TB/day on the 80GB SLC device, which wear levels across 100GB of actual installed capacity.
http://community.fusionio.com/forums/p/34/258.aspx#258
Max drive performance would be about 41TB/day, which coincidently works out very close to the 3 year warranty they have on the devices.
FusionIO's claim _seems_ credible. I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary.
On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:18 AM, Brad Nicholson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 09:11 -0400, Justin Pitts wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Brad Nicholson wrote:
>>
>>> I've been hearing bad things from some folks about the quality of the
>>> FusionIO drives from a durability standpoint.
>>
>> Can you be more specific about that? Durability over what time frame? How many devices in the sample set? How did FusionIO deal with the issue?
>
> I didn't get any specifics - as we are looking at other products. It
> did center around how FusionIO did wear-leveling though.
> --
> Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106
> Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-17 14:27:04 | Re: Block at a time ... |
| Previous Message | Brad Nicholson | 2010-03-17 13:18:20 | Re: Testing FusionIO |