Re: SSD performance

From: david(at)lang(dot)hm
To: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSD performance
Date: 2009-01-25 08:36:28
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.1.10.0901250034080.16162@asgard.lang.hm
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Greg Smith wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
>
>> take a look at this ram based drive, specificly look at the numbers here
>> http://techreport.com/articles.x/16255/9
>> they are about as much above the X25-e as the X25-e is above normal drives.
>
> They're so close to having a killer product with that one. All they need to
> do is make the backup to the CF card automatic once the battery backup power
> drops low (but not so low there's not enough power to do said backup) and it
> would actually be a reasonable solution. The whole battery-backed cache
> approach is risky enough when the battery is expected to last a day or two;
> with this product only giving 4 hours, it not hard to imagine situations
> where you'd lose everything on there.

they currently have it do a backup immediatly on power loss (which is a
safe choice as the contents won't be changing without power), but it then
powers off (which is not good for startup time afterwords)

David Lang

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2009-01-25 09:58:09 Re: strange index performance?
Previous Message Thomas Finneid 2009-01-25 08:14:45 Re: strange index performance?