From: <gnuoytr@rcn.com>
Subject: Re: Intel SSDs that may not suck
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4D9D27D0.9040800@boreham.org>
References: <4D90EDB6.2080609@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<4D9A6FB6.2000702@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<4D9D1FC3.4020207@2ndQuadrant.com> <4D9D27D0.9040800@boreham.org>
Message-Id: <201104070319.060633@ms14.lnh.mail.rcn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed,  6 Apr 2011 23:19:50 -0400 (EDT)

SSDs have been around for quite some time.  The first that I've found is Texas Memory.  Not quite 1977, but not flash either, although they've been doing so for a couple of years.  

http://www.ramsan.com/company/history

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:56:16 -0600
>From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org (on behalf of David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>)
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SSDs that may not suck  
>To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>
>Had to say a quick thanks to Greg and the others who have posted 
>detailed test results on SSDs here.
>For those of us watching for the inflection point where we can begin the 
>transition from mechanical to solid state storage, this data and 
>experience is invaluable. Thanks for sharing it.
>
>A short story while I'm posting : my Dad taught electronics engineering 
>and would often visit the local factories with groups of students. I 
>remember in particular after a visit to a disk drive manufacturer 
>(Burroughs), in 1977 he came home telling me that he'd asked the plant 
>manager what their plan was once solid state storage made their products 
>obsolete. The manager looked at him like he was form another planet...
>
>So I've been waiting patiently 34 years for this hopefully 
>soon-to-arrive moment ;)
>
>
>
>-- 
>Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
>To make changes to your subscription:
>http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance