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

Re: Cheap RAM disk?

From: Richard_D_Levine(at)raytheon(dot)com
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cheap RAM disk?
Date: 2005-07-26 20:02:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
> you'd be much better served by
> putting a big NVRAM cache in front of a fast disk array

I agree with the point below, but I think price was the issue of the
original discussion.  That said, it seems that a single high speed spindle
would give this a run for its money in both price and performance, and for
the same reasons Mike points out.  Maybe a SCSI 160 or 320 at 15k, or maybe
even something slower.


pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org wrote on 07/26/2005 01:33:43 PM:

> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:23:23AM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> >Yup - interesting and very niche product - it seems like it's only
> >application is for the Postgresql WAL problem :-)
> On the contrary--it's not obvious that it is an ideal fit for a WAL. A
> ram disk like this is optimized for highly random access applications.
> The WAL is a single sequential writer. If you're in the kind of market
> that needs a really high performance WAL you'd be much better served by
> putting a big NVRAM cache in front of a fast disk array than by buying a
> toy like this.
> Mike Stone
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2005-07-26 20:05:00
Subject: Re: [IMPORTANT] - My application performance
Previous:From: John A MeinelDate: 2005-07-26 19:51:11
Subject: Re: faster INSERT with possible pre-existing row?

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