On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Greg Smith <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> So flash isn't yet a general purpose database solution, and wont be until >> the write performance problem is fixed in a way that doesn't >> compromise on volatility. > > Flash drives that ship with a supercapacitor large enough to ensure orderly > write cache flushing in the event of power loss seem to be the only solution > anyone is making progress on for this right now. That would turn them into > something even better even than the traditional approach of using regular > disk with a battery-backed write caching controller. Given the relatively > small write cache involved and the fast write speed, it's certainly feasible > to just flush at power loss every time rather than what the BBWC products > do--recover once power comes back. right -- unfortunately there is likely going to be a fairly high cost premium on these devices for a good while yet. right now afaik you only see this stuff on boutique type devices...yeech. I have to admit until your running expose in this stuff I was led to believe by a few companies (especially Intel) that flash storage technology was a few years ahead of where it really was -- it's going to take me a long time to forgive them for that! put another way (are you listening intel?): _NO_ drive should be positioned to the server/enterprise market that does not honor fsync by default unless it is very clearly documented! This is forgivable for a company geared towards the consumer market...but Intel...ugh! merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
