Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD

[Brad Nicholson <bnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/10/2010 2:38 PM, Karl Denninger wrote:

Scott Marlowe wrote:

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Karl Denninger <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  

ANY disk that says "write is complete" when it really is not is entirely
unsuitable for ANY real database use.  It is simply a matter of time
    

What about read only slaves where there's a master with 100+spinning
hard drives "getting it right" and you need a half dozen or so read
slaves?  I can imagine that being ok, as long as you don't restart a
server after a crash without checking on it.
  

A read-only slave isn't read-only, is it?

I mean, c'mon - how does the data get there?

A valid case is a Slony replica if used for query offloading (not for DR).  It's considered a read-only subscriber from the perspective of Slony as only Slony can modify the data  (although you are technically correct, it is not read only - controlled write may be more accurate). 

 In case of failure, a rebuild + resubscribe gets you back to the same consistency.  If you have high IO requirements, and don't have the budget to rack up extra disk arrays to meet them, it could be an option.

-- 
Brad Nicholson  416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.