Josh Berkus wrote:
>>The SanDisks do seem a bit pokey at 16MBps. On the otherhand, you could
>>get 4 of these suckers, put them in a mega-RAID-0 stripe for 64MBps. You
>>shouldn't need to do mirroring with a solid state drive.
> I wouldn't count on RAID0 improving the speed of SANDisk's much. How are you
> connecting to them? USB? USB doesn't support fast parallel data access.
You can get ATA SanDisks up to 2GB. Another vendor I checked out --
BitMicro -- has solid state drives for SATA, SCSI and FiberChannel. I'd
definitely would not use USB SSDs -- USB performance would be so pokey
to be useless.
> Now, if it turns out that 256MB ramdisks are less than 1/5 the cost of 1GB
> ramdisks, then that's worth considering.
Looks like they're linear with size. SanDisk Flashdrive 1GB is about
$1000 while 256MB is $250.
> You're right, though, mirroring a solid state drive is pretty pointless; if
> power fails, both mirrors are dead.
Actually no. Solid state memory is non-volatile. They retain data even
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Richard Huxton||Date: 2003-11-24 19:29:40|
|Subject: Re: Problem with insert into select...|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2003-11-24 18:04:37|
|Subject: Re: Maximum Possible Insert Performance?|