On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rick Otten <rot...@manta.com> wrote: >>> I not convinced about the need for BBU with SSD - you *can* use them >>> without one, just need to make sure about suitable longevity and also >>> the presence of (proven) power off protection (as discussed >>> previously). It is worth noting that using unproven or SSD known to be >>> lacking power off protection with a BBU will *not* save you from >>> massive corruption (or device failure) upon unexpected power loss. > >>I don't think any drive that corrupts on power-off is suitable for a >>database, but for non-db uses, sure, I guess they are OK, though you have to >>be pretty money->constrainted to like that tradeoff. > > Wouldn't mission critical databases normally be configured in a high > availability cluster - presumably with replicas running on different power > sources?
I've worked in high end data centers where certain failures resulted in ALL power being lost. more than once. Relying on never losing power to keep your data from getting corrupted is not a good idea. Now if they're geographically separate you're maybe ok. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
