On 4/5/11 7:07 AM, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Greg Smith <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> If you really don't need more than 120GB of storage, but do care about >> random I/O speed, this is a pretty easy decision now--presuming the >>drive >> holds up to claims. As the claims are reasonable relative to the >> engineering that went into the drive now, that may actually be the case. > >One thing about MLC flash drives (which the industry seems to be >moving towards) is that you have to factor drive lifespan into the >total system balance of costs. Data point: had an ocz vertex 2 that >burned out in ~ 18 months. In the post mortem, it was determined that >the drive met and exceeded its 10k write limit -- this was a busy >production box. What OCZ Drive? What controller? Indilinx? SandForce? Wear-leveling on these vary quite a bit. Intel claims write lifetimes in the single digit PB sizes for these 310's. They are due to have an update to the X25-E line too at some point. Public roadmaps say this will be using "enterprise" MLC. This stuff trades off write endurance for data longevity -- if left without power for too long the data will be lost. This is a tradeoff for all flash -- but the stuff that is optimized for USB sticks is quite different than the stuff optimized for servers. > >merlin > >-- >Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) >To make changes to your subscription: >http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
