Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C108AB5DEB0 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 01:15:06 -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 83740-01 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 04:15:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from shrek.krogh.cc (2605ds1-ynoe.0.fullrate.dk [90.184.12.24]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48150B5DEAC for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 01:14:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shrek.krogh.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C2D91E8FF7 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 06:14:58 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at shrek.krogh.cc Received: from shrek.krogh.cc ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (shrek.krogh.cc [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F7qKvvxeJ0sv for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 06:14:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [90.184.13.151] (2605ds1-ynoe.2.fullrate.dk [90.184.13.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jesper@krogh.cc) by shrek.krogh.cc (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BCD11E8F56 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 06:14:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E60583A.4040302@krogh.cc> Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 06:14:50 +0200 From: Jesper Krogh User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Summaries on SSD usage? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 201109/7 X-Sequence-Number: 44783 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