| From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
| Cc: | Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net" <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: understanding postgres issues/bottlenecks |
| Date: | 2009-01-10 23:44:16 |
| Message-ID: | 496932D0.8050007@paradise.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>
>> The new MLC based SSDs have better wear leveling tech and don't
>> suffer the pauses. Intel X25-M 80 and 160 GB SSDs are both
>> pause-free. See Anandtech's test results for details.
>
> they don't suffer the pauses, but they still don't have fantasic write
> speeds.
>
> David Lang
>
>> Intel's SLC SSDs should also be good enough but they're smaller.
>>
From what I can see, SLC SSDs are still quite superior for reliability
and (write) performance. However they are too small and too expensive
right now. Hopefully the various manufacturers are working on improving
the size/price issue for SLC, as well as improving the
performance/reliability area for the MLC products.
regards
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | david | 2009-01-11 00:03:32 | Re: understanding postgres issues/bottlenecks |
| Previous Message | M. Edward (Ed) Borasky | 2009-01-10 23:10:19 | Re: block device benchmarking |