Re: Intel SSDs that may not suck

On 4/5/11 7:07 AM, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> If you really don't need more than 120GB of storage, but do care about
>> random I/O speed, this is a pretty easy decision now--presuming the
>>drive
>> holds up to claims. As the claims are reasonable relative to the
>> engineering that went into the drive now, that may actually be the case.
>
>One thing about MLC flash drives (which the industry seems to be
>moving towards) is that you have to factor drive lifespan into the
>total system balance of costs. Data point: had an ocz vertex 2 that
>burned out in ~ 18 months. In the post mortem, it was determined that
>the drive met and exceeded its 10k write limit -- this was a busy
>production box.

What OCZ Drive? What controller? Indilinx? SandForce? Wear-leveling on
these vary quite a bit.

Intel claims write lifetimes in the single digit PB sizes for these 310's.
They are due to have an update to the X25-E line too at some point.
Public roadmaps say this will be using "enterprise" MLC. This stuff
trades off write endurance for data longevity -- if left without power for
too long the data will be lost. This is a tradeoff for all flash -- but
the stuff that is optimized for USB sticks is quite different than the
stuff optimized for servers.

>
>merlin
>
>--
>Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>To make changes to your subscription:
>http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance