|From:||Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>|
|To:||Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net>, Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: SSD + RAID|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Greg Smith wrote:
> Karl Denninger wrote:
>> With the write cache off on these disks they still are huge wins for
>> very-heavy-read applications, which many are.
> Very read-heavy applications would do better to buy a ton of RAM
> instead and just make sure they populate from permanent media (say by
> reading everything in early at sequential rates to prime the cache).
> There is an extremely narrow use-case where SSDs are the right
> technology, and it's only in a subset even of read-heavy apps where
> they make sense.
Out of curiosity, what are those narrow use cases where you think SSD's
are the correct technology?
Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
|Next Message||Dave Crooke||2009-11-13 20:22:22||Re: SSD + RAID|
|Previous Message||Merlin Moncure||2009-11-13 18:57:28||Re: SSD + RAID|