From: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>
To: Andy <angelflow@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BBU still needed with SSD?
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:56:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4E23E72B.2070508@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1310953399.25726.YahooMailClassic@web111304.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <1310953399.25726.YahooMailClassic@web111304.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
On 2011-07-18 03:43, Andy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is BBU still needed with SSD?
>
> SSD has its own cache. And in certain models such as Intel 320 that cache is backed by capacitors. So in a sense that cache acts as a BBU that's backed by capacitors instead of batteries.
>
> In this case is BBU still needed? If I put 2 SSD
+with supercap?
> in software RAID 1, would that be any slower than 2 SSD in HW RAID 1 with BBU? What are the pros and cons?
The biggest drawback of 2 SSD's with supercap in hardware raid 1, is
that if they are both new and of the same model/firmware, they'd
probably reach the end of their write cycles at the same time, thereby
failing simultaneously. You'd have to start with two SSD's with
different remaining life left in the software raid setup.
regards,
Yeb
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: yebhavinga@gmail.com, angelflow@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: BBU still needed with SSD?
In-Reply-To: <4E23E72B.2070508@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox