On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:05:09AM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
On 11/14/12 2:11 AM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
So on the face of it, I think the Sandforce-based drives are probably a
winner here, so I should look at the Intel 520s for evaluation, and
whatever the enterprise equivalent are for
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:05:09AM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
On 11/14/12 2:11 AM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
So on the face of it, I think the Sandforce-based drives are probably a
winner here, so I should look at the Intel
On 11/14/12 2:11 AM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
So on the face of it, I think the Sandforce-based drives are probably a
winner here, so I should look at the Intel 520s for evaluation, and
whatever the enterprise equivalent are for production.
As far as I know the 520 series drives fail the
On 11/14/2012 01:11 AM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
I'm wondering which type of SSDs would be better for use with
PostgreSQL.
A few things:
1. While the controller may or may not have an impact, the presence of
an on-board super-capacitor will have more. SSDs should be considered
malignant
On 15/11/12 01:42, Shaun Thomas wrote:
On 11/14/2012 01:11 AM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
I'm wondering which type of SSDs would be better for use with
PostgreSQL.
Hi Shaun,
thanks for your info. I should probably have made it clear that I was
curious to know how the compression stuff affected
Hi,
I'm wondering which type of SSDs would be better for use with PostgreSQL.
Background:
At the moment, SSD drives fall into two categories..
Those that use internal-compression on the SandForce controller, which
gives very fast speeds for compressible data; and those that don't.
In
