| From: | Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Postgres General Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Considering Solid State Drives |
| Date: | 2010-11-11 13:35:39 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=bpwTcXLm=BhBZsn0DvZBkyNcGz8+7cE=DBnLc@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Allan Kamau <kamauallan(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> After googling I found little resent content (including survival
> statistics) of using SSDs in a write intensive database environment.
>
We use the Texas Memory RAMSan-620 external disk units. It is
designed specifically to survive high write loads, and uses internal
monitoring and load leveling and spare parts with internal RAID
configuration to keep from losing data in the eventual case when the
SSD chips wear out. When that happens, you just swap out the failed
piece and it keeps humming along.
I wouldn't trust an SSD as a stand-alone drive for a DB. At minimum,
I'd RAID1 them using the SATA controller... but be sure to get SATA3
or even better SAS connected drives if you want to maximize the speed.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | tv | 2010-11-11 14:11:14 | Re: good settings for DB parameters such as shared_buffers, checkpoint_segment in Postrgesql 9 |
| Previous Message | Vick Khera | 2010-11-11 13:31:35 | Re: good settings for DB parameters such as shared_buffers, checkpoint_segment in Postrgesql 9 |