Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Making the most of memory?

From: Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>
To: Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1(at)burntmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Making the most of memory?
Date: 2008-01-23 21:06:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Guy Rouillier wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> I assume you're talking about solid state drives?  They have their
>> uses, but for most use cases, having plenty of RAM in your server will
>> be a better way to spend your money.  For certain high throughput,
>> relatively small databases (i.e. transactional work) the SSD can be
>> quite useful.
> Unless somebody has changes some physics recently, I'm not understanding 
> the recent discussions of SSD in the general press.  Flash has a limited 
> number of writes before it becomes unreliable.  On good quality consumer 
> grade, that's about 300,000 writes, while on industrial grade it's about 
> 10 times that.  That's fine for mp3 players and cameras; even 
> professional photographers probably won't rewrite the same spot on a 
> flash card that many times in a lifetime.  But for database 
> applications, 300,000 writes is trivial. 3 million will go a lot longer, 
> but in non-archival applications, I imagine even that mark won't take 
> but a year or two to surpass.

One trick they use is to remap the physical Flash RAM to different logical addresses.  Typical apps update a small percentage of the data frequently, and the rest of the data rarely or never.  By shuffling the physical Flash RAM around, the media lasts a lot longer than a simple analysis might indicate.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2008-01-24 00:31:51
Subject: Re: Postgres 8.2 memory weirdness
Previous:From: Brian HurtDate: 2008-01-23 20:50:59
Subject: Re: Making the most of memory?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group