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
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? |