Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C336325B0 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:40:02 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81006-03 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:39:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.8]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CB6632593 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:39:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.0.105] (pool-96-244-14-10.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [96.244.14.10]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M6fZs-1NXpWk33Bs-00wJFb; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:39:36 +0100 Message-ID: <4B8331D5.7000802@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:39:33 -0500 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Mielke CC: Arjen van der Meijden , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SSD + RAID References: <201002211410.o1LEAht05941@momjian.us> <4B814920.1040204@cheapcomplexdevices.com> <4B82187A.7060604@2ndquadrant.com> <4B822DFF.50501@tweakers.net> <4B8329A3.4040003@2ndquadrant.com> <4B832B3E.9080207@mark.mielke.cc> In-Reply-To: <4B832B3E.9080207@mark.mielke.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+XA76ZdpSSqY8pLC2qYgx7YTJnC6Qz5TwjqMu T9VSrXRkaIcyIcaAtyBW1vnGWcAnyfKVVoG1zkyrxqqG/lfcvC sTHZWlP5XYl4Fftz2zMnwxgIcGlAPJ/ X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.428 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201002/310 X-Sequence-Number: 37731 Mark Mielke wrote: > I had read the above when posted, and then looked up SRAM. SRAM seems > to suggest it will hold the data even after power loss, but only for a > period of time. As long as power can restore within a few minutes, it > seemed like this would be ok? The normal type of RAM everyone uses is DRAM, which requires constrant "refresh" cycles to keep it working and is pretty power hungry as a result. Power gone, data gone an instant later. There is also Non-volatile SRAM that includes an integrated battery ( http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/2648 is a typical example), and that sort of design can be used to build the sort of battery-backed caches that RAID controllers provide. If Intel's drives were built using a NV-SRAM implementation, I'd be a happy owner of one instead of a constant critic of their drives. But regular old SRAM is still completely volatile and loses its contents very quickly after power fails. I doubt you'd even get minutes of time before it's gone. The ease at which data loss failures with these Intel drives continue to be duplicated in the field says their design isn't anywhere near good enough to be considered non-volatile. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us