From: Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Summaries on SSD usage?
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 06:14:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4E60583A.4040302@krogh.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F9B45497-E978-467E-9D00-16A32FA7B6D8@nasby.net>
References: <CAFcOn28h1-uD9Q11rKve2W3BxuUajHX96mXvMcQ=tQsn3pvKgg@mail.gmail.com>
<F9B45497-E978-467E-9D00-16A32FA7B6D8@nasby.net>
On 2011-09-01 23:28, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Stefan Keller wrote:
>> I'm looking for summaries (or best practices) on SSD usage with PostgreSQL.
>> My use case is mainly a "read-only" database.
>> Are there any around?
> I'm not sure, but for read-only why not just put more memory in the server? It'll be a lot cheaper than SSDs
It is "really expensive" to go over 512GB memory and the performance
regression for
just hitting disk in a system where you assume everything is in memory is
really huge. SSD makes the "edge" be a bit smoother than rotating drives
do.
Jesper
--
Jesper
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: jesper@krogh.cc
Subject: Re: Summaries on SSD usage?
In-Reply-To: <4E60583A.4040302@krogh.cc>
* 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