Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6907D2E31A6 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:00:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27076-02-2 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:00:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41732E3377 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:34:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m0OGYH1e072953 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:34:17 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m0OGBrGP060802 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:11:53 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news) From: Chris Browne X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: Making the most of memory? Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:09:08 -0500 Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc Lines: 44 Message-ID: <60ve5jkxy3.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> References: <4796BE84.9030803@centriccrm.com> <47979C15.3040406@burntmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.21 (linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:uOqlIBfoxAxEguUEoOCIF/posaw= To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200801/215 X-Sequence-Number: 28454 scott.marlowe@gmail.com ("Scott Marlowe") writes: > On Jan 23, 2008 1:57 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote: >> Scott Marlowe wrote: >> > I assume you're talking about solid state drives? They have their >> > uses, but for most use cases, having plenty of RAM in your server will >> > be a better way to spend your money. For certain high throughput, >> > relatively small databases (i.e. transactional work) the SSD can be >> > quite useful. >> >> Unless somebody has changes some physics recently, I'm not understanding >> the recent discussions of SSD in the general press. Flash has a limited >> number of writes before it becomes unreliable. On good quality consumer > > Actually, I was referring to all SSD systems, some of which are based > on flash memory, some on DRAM, sometimes backed by hard drives. > > There's always a use case for a given piece of tech. Yeah, I could see an SSD making use of a mixture of technologies... - Obviously, it needs a pile of RAM. - Then, have a battery that can keep the RAM backed up for [a while]. - If power goes out, then contents of RAM get copied out to the "flash" memory. In this context, "flash" has several merits over disk drives. Notably, the absence of moving mechanical parts means: - Hopefully lower power consumption than a disk drive - Less fragility than a disk drive - Quite likely the "flash" will be smaller than a disk drive The fact that the number of writes may be limited should only be an important factor if power goes out *INCREDIBLY* frequently, as data only gets written upon power loss. The combination of RAM + battery + flash looks like a real winner, when they are combined using a protocol that takes advantage of their strengths, and which doesn't rest on their weaknesses. -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://cbbrowne.com/info/advocacy.html Roses are red Violets are blue Some poems rhyme But this one doesn't.