Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABE51337BE6 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 02:48:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23878-03 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 05:47:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.9]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD791337B2F for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 02:47:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lib0L-1PV5b42Xs5-00cuYV; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:47:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4D9D502A.2010600@2ndQuadrant.com> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 01:48:26 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Krogh CC: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Intel SSDs that may not suck References: <4D90EDB6.2080609@2ndQuadrant.com> <4D9D3D4D.300@krogh.cc> In-Reply-To: <4D9D3D4D.300@krogh.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:rGEvwXICNp4M56g/MJ6XWQu08iL5CWywuJ6pIdt5LVD k9bDBt6yOn9g8mN8705UaabyO6k+Ku+LcryaEdLp9MNGFzPM0I hBFKpeI/0h5efqiSHj0Et50zytkEdepS63K6gf2J5IqH88z2l6 AUYXNiswblbx//0vGcnQxQ7Y3EhrWP7MPOA3yVKDxvevJ7lgcG x6ZuqYb8Qm7X6Jg03nG+F7BQ+Q7vKJcg4XmWScpdxU= 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 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201104/69 X-Sequence-Number: 43131 On 04/07/2011 12:27 AM, Jesper Krogh wrote: > On 2011-03-28 22:21, Greg Smith wrote: >> Some may still find these two cheap for enterprise use, given the use >> of MLC limits how much activity these drives can handle. But it's >> great to have a new option for lower budget system that can tolerate >> some risk there. >> > Drifting of the topic slightly.. Has anyone opinions/experience with: > http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-z-drive-r2-p88-pci-express-ssd.html > > They seem to be "like" the FusionIO drives just quite a lot cheaper, > wonder what the state of those 512MB is in case of a power-loss. What I do is assume that if the vendor doesn't say outright how the cache is preserved, that means it isn't, and the card is garbage for database use. That rule is rarely wrong. The available soon Z-Drive R3 includes a Sandforce controller and supercap for preserving writes: http://hothardware.com/News/OCZ-Unveils-RevoDrive-X3-Vertex-3-and-Other-SSD-Goodness/ Since they're bragging about it there, the safe bet is that the older R2 unit had no such facility. I note that the Z-Drive R2 is basically some flash packed on top of an LSI 1068e controller, mapped as a RAID0 volume. It's possible they left the battery-backup unit on that card exposed, so it may be possible to do better with it. The way they just stack those card layers together, the thing is practically held together with duct tape though. That's not a confidence inspiring design to me. The R3 drives are much more cleanly integrated. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books