X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EA869DC8A8 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:07:09 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26516-05 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:07:10 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com [63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C999E9DC842 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:07:06 -0400 (AST) Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com ([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:07:08 +0000 Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com; 17 Mar 2006 16:07:08 -0600 Subject: Re: 1 TB of memory From: Scott Marlowe To: Merlin Moncure Cc: Luke Lonergan , "Jim C. Nasby" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: <20060317173653.GC15742@pervasive.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1142633228.1141.7.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:07:08 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.147 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.146, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] X-Spam-Score: 0.147 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/291 X-Sequence-Number: 17728 On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 15:28, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On 3/17/06, Luke Lonergan wrote: > > > Now what happens as soon as you start doing random I/O? :) > > If you are accessing 3 rows at a time from among billions, the problem you > > have is mostly access time - so an SSD might be very good for some OLTP > > applications. However - the idea of putting Terabytes of data into an SSD > > through a thin straw of a channel is silly. > > I'll 'byte' on this..right now the price for gigabyte of ddr ram is > hovering around 60$/gigabyte. If you conveniently leave aside the > problem of making ddr ram fault tolerant vs making disks tolerant, you > are getting 10 orders of magnitude faster seek time and unlimited > bandwidth...at least from the physical device. While SANs are getting > cheaper they are still fairly expensive at 1-5$/gigabyte depending on > various factors. You can do the same tricks on SSD storage as with > disks. > > SSD storage is 1-2k$/gigabyte currently, but I think there is huge > room to maneuver price-wise after the major players recoup their > investments and market forces kick in. IMO this process is already in > play and the next cycle of hardware upgrades in the enterprise will be > updating critical servers with SSD storage. Im guessing by as early > 2010 a significant percentage of enterpise storage will be SSD of some > flavor. Now I'm envisioning building something with commodity 1U servers hold 4 to 16 gigs ram, and interconnected with 1g or 10g ethernet. Open Source SSD via iSCSI with commodity hardware... hmmm. sounds like a useful project.