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

Re: SSD performance

From: david(at)lang(dot)hm
To: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSD performance
Date: 2009-01-25 08:36:28
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Greg Smith wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
>> take a look at this ram based drive, specificly look at the numbers here
>> they are about as much above the X25-e as the X25-e is above normal drives.
> They're so close to having a killer product with that one.  All they need to 
> do is make the backup to the CF card automatic once the battery backup power 
> drops low (but not so low there's not enough power to do said backup) and it 
> would actually be a reasonable solution.  The whole battery-backed cache 
> approach is risky enough when the battery is expected to last a day or two; 
> with this product only giving 4 hours, it not hard to imagine situations 
> where you'd lose everything on there.

they currently have it do a backup immediatly on power loss (which is a 
safe choice as the contents won't be changing without power), but it then 
powers off (which is not good for startup time afterwords)

David Lang

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2009-01-25 09:58:09
Subject: Re: strange index performance?
Previous:From: Thomas FinneidDate: 2009-01-25 08:14:45
Subject: Re: strange index performance?

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