Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Brad Nicholson wrote:

> On 10-08-12 03:22 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
>> On 12-8-2010 2:53 gnuoytr(at)rcn(dot)com wrote:
>>> - The value of SSD in the database world is not as A Faster HDD(tm).
>>> Never was, despite the naive' who assert otherwise. The value of SSD
>>> is to enable BCNF datastores. Period. If you're not going to do
>>> that, don't bother. Silicon storage will never reach equivalent
>>> volumetric density, ever. SSD will never be useful in the byte bloat
>>> world of xml and other flat file datastores (resident in databases or
>>> not). Industrial strength SSD will always be more expensive/GB, and
>>> likely by a lot. (Re)factoring to high normalization strips out an
>>> order of magnitude of byte bloat, increases native data integrity by
>>> as much, reduces much of the redundant code, and puts the ACID where
>>> it belongs. All good things, but not effortless.
>>
>> It is actually quite common to under-utilize (short stroke) hard drives in
>> the enterprise world. Simply because 'they' need more IOps per amount of
>> data than a completely utilized disk can offer.
>> As such the expense/GB can be much higher than simply dividing the capacity
>> by its price (and if you're looking at fiber channel disks, that price is
>> quite high already). And than it is relatively easy to find enterprise
>> SSD's with better pricing for the whole system as soon as the IOps are more
>> important than the capacity.
>
> And when you compare the ongoing operational costs of rack space, powering
> and cooling for big arrays full of spinning disks to flash based solutions
> the price comparison evens itself out even more.

check your SSD specs, some of the high performance ones draw quite a bit
of power.

David Lang