On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, David Boreham <david_list@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 5/10/2013 10:21 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >>> >>> As it turns out the list of flash drives are suitable for database use is >>> surprisingly small. The s3700 I noted upthread seems to be specifically >>> built with databases in mind and is likely the best choice for new >>> deployments. The older Intel 320 is also a good choice. I think that's >>> pretty much it until you get into expensive pci-e based gear. >> >> >> This may have been a typo : did you mean Intel 710 series rather than 320 ? >> >> While the 320 has the supercap, it isn't specified for high write endurance. >> Definitely usable for a database, and a better choice than most of the >> alternatives, but I'd have listed the 710 ahead of the 320. > > It wasn't a typo. The 320 though is perfectly fine although it will > wear out faster -- so it fills a niche for low write intensity > applications. I find the s3700 to be superior to the 710 in just > about every way (although you're right -- it is suitable for database > use). There's also the 520 series, which has better performance than the 320 series (which is EOL now). -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
