Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A6A633A77 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:49:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67860-02 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 04:49:10 +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 EA9B66330B7 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:49:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.151] (static-71-179-240-8.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lwnl2-1Oyp1o0rwO-016n8s; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:49:08 +0200 Message-ID: <4C637D42.5040208@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:49:06 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gnuoytr@rcn.com CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD References: <20100811205356.AHB77050@ms14.lnh.mail.rcn.net> In-Reply-To: <20100811205356.AHB77050@ms14.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:6fQqmeBvzztsFPkgEG0HziKVr5iERwCWX1NM5Y/VugU hMFXDPZCYNgVu+MzP+Xf+PkdnNwAQyZiehV1p74r3ton00YMu6 yPUYzvvnmvwW+dDs5MrcONxcKxwwsgrfWgZdtXmLXw3TiscrR2 T/hq4r0kFEWE2aGpWgJuEu9mFQiZvhF8B+nSU8/fx4gFVxMcM+ YB08wxwjKgDb3dGYCTw49AHKs211q9w1l7bATDFVgM= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201008/141 X-Sequence-Number: 39984 gnuoytr@rcn.com wrote: > Sufficiently bulletproof flash SSD exist and have for years, but their names are not well known (no one on this thread has named any) The models perceived as bulletproof are the really dangerous ones to deploy. First, people let their guard down and stop being as paranoid as they should be when they use them. Second, it becomes much more difficult for them to justify buying more than one of the uber-SSD. That combination makes it easier to go back to having a single copy of their data, and there's a really bad road to wander down. The whole idea that kicked off this thread was to enable building systems cheap enough to allow making more inexpensive copies of the data. My systems at home for example follow this model to some degree. There's not a single drive more expensive than $100 to be found here, but everything important to me is sitting on four of them in two systems within seconds after I save it. However, even here I've found it worth dropping enough money for a real battery-backed write cache, to reduce the odds of write corruption on the more important of the servers. Not doing so would be a dangerously cheap decision. That's similar to how I feel about SSDs right now too. You need them to be expensive enough that corruption is unusual rather than expected after a crash--it's ridiculous to not spend enough to get something that's not completely broken by design--while not spending so much that you can't afford to deploy many of them. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us