Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:41:48 -0400
From: "David F. Skoll" <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Opinions on SSDs
Message-ID: <20130812164148.44a60096@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130812200504.GA12496@momjian.us>
References: <20130812112833.65a97285@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com>
 <52090030.4000503@commandprompt.com>
 <20130812200504.GA12496@momjian.us>
Organization: Roaring Penguin Software Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:05:04 -0400
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 08:33:04AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> > Put the pg_xlog on spindles, they are more than fast enough and
> > won't eat up the write life of your SSDs.

> Given its small size and need for fast fsync, I have WAL on SSDs, and
> the data on magnetic disk.  You are right the WAL can generate a lot
> of writes, but just use smartctl monitoring and replace the SSD when
> needed.

:-)  Nothing like consensus from Pg luminaries. :)

Anyway, I've decided to go with spinning disks for this server upgrade.  The
factors behind my decision:

o A server with 16 10Krpm disks will be substantially better than what we
  have now, and what we have now is managing to keep up with only occasional
  over-busy periods.

o My supplier cannot easily get the 320, 710 or S3700 Intel SSD disks; he
  claims a shortage of Intel SSD drives.  I know too little about non-Intel
  SSDs to feel comfortable with them.

o One of our two database servers is 200km away, so swapping out SSDs on
  a prophylactic basis is not particularly appetizing.

Regards,

David.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin