Re: Databases in memory (-->flashdrive problem)

From: "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Databases in memory (-->flashdrive problem)
Date: 2002-04-15 19:20:27
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0204152018180.20382-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin


On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Christian Gerdes" <christian(dot)gerdes(at)exai(dot)de> writes:
> > Is there an opportunity to configure postgre to keep databases in Memory?
> > I need to store a lot of data (many little entries) on IDE- flashdrive.
> > But flashdrives have a little problem with write-cycles.
> > Each flash-cell can be rewritten approxiatly 300.000 times. This means for me:
> > there is no chance to store my db directly on flashdrive.
>
> > If i could let my databases stay in RAM (maybe RAM-Drive, if so) i may do a backup to flashdrive in a defined frequency!?
>
> Sure: keep the database on a RAM-drive (this will mean an initdb and
> data load on each bootup, hope you can stand that) and use pg_dump to
> a text file on flashdrive as your backup mechanism. Use a cron task
> to run pg_dump at whatever frequency suits you.

Wouldn't it be possible/better to just do recursive filesystem copy between RAM
drive and the flash drive?

Obviously that would be before starting postmaster and after stopping it using
cpio or whatever tool is prefered.

--
Nigel J. Andrews
Director

---
Logictree Systems Limited
Computer Consultants

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc Mitchell 2002-04-15 19:51:38 Re: string PK vs. interger PK
Previous Message Nick Fankhauser 2002-04-15 19:20:06 Re: string PK vs. interger PK