PFC wrote:
Why do you claim that 'More platters also means slower seeks
and generally slower performance.'?
More platters -> more heads -> heavier head assembly -> slower
seek time
Note sure I've sen a lot of evidence of that in drive specifications!
Gigabyte should revamp their i-RAM to use ECC RAM of a larger
capacity... and longer lasting battery backup...
You would think a decent capacitor or rechargable button battery would
be enough to dump it to a flash memory.
No problem with flash wear then.
I wonder, how many write cycles those Flash drives can take before
reliability becomes a problem...
Hard to get data isn't it? I believe its hundreds of thousands to
millions now. Now each record in most OLTP
tables is rewritten a few times unless its stuff that can go into temp
tables etc, which should be elsewhere.
Index pages clearly get rewritten often.
I suspect a mix of storage technologies will be handy for some time yet
- WAL on disk, and temp tables on
disk with no synchronous fsync requirement.
I think life is about to get interesting in DBMS storage. All good for
us users.
James
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
