On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 11:08 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Scott Carey <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Let me re-phrase this. > > > > For today, at 200GB or less of required space, and 500GB or less next year. > > > > "Where we're going, we don't NEED spindles." > > Those intel SSDs sound compelling. I've been waiting for SSDs to get > competitive price and performance wise for a while, and when the > intels came out and I read the first benchmarks I immediately began > scheming. Sadly, that was right after we're ordered our new 16 drive > servers, and I didn't have time to try something new and hope it would > work. Now that the servers are up and running, we'll probably look at > adding the SSDs next summer before our high load period begins. > The idea of SSDs is interesting. However I think I will wait for all the other early adopters to figure out the problems before I start suggesting them to clients. Hard drives work, their cheap and fast. I can get 25 spindles, 15k in a 3U with controller and battery backed cache for <$10k. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
