On 4/6/11 4:03 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Not for user data, only controller data. > False. I used to think so, but there is volatile write cache for user data -- its on the 256K chip SRAM not the DRAM though. Simple power failure tests demonstrate that you lose data with these drives unless you disable the cache. Disabling the cache roughly drops write performance by a factor of 3 to 4 on G1 drives and significantly hurts wear-leveling and longevity (I haven't tried G2's). > > >---- Original message ---- >>Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:11:10 -0700 (PDT) >>From: [email protected] (on behalf of Andy >><[email protected]>) >>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SSDs that may not suck >>To: Merlin Moncure <[email protected]>,Scott Carey >><[email protected]> >>Cc: "[email protected]" >><[email protected]>,Greg Smith <[email protected]> >> >> >>--- On Wed, 4/6/11, Scott Carey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> I could care less about the 'fast' sandforce drives. >>> They fail at a high >>> rate and the performance improvement is BECAUSE they are >>> using a large, >>> volatile write cache. >> >>The G1 and G2 Intel MLC also use volatile write cache, just like most >>SandForce drives do. >> >>-- >>Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list >>([email protected]) >>To make changes to your subscription: >>http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > >-- >Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected]) >To make changes to your subscription: >http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
