On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 11:08 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com> wrote:
> > Let me re-phrase this.
> >
> > For today, at 200GB or less of required space, and 500GB or less next year.
> >
> > "Where we're going, we don't NEED spindles."
>
> Those intel SSDs sound compelling. I've been waiting for SSDs to get
> competitive price and performance wise for a while, and when the
> intels came out and I read the first benchmarks I immediately began
> scheming. Sadly, that was right after we're ordered our new 16 drive
> servers, and I didn't have time to try something new and hope it would
> work. Now that the servers are up and running, we'll probably look at
> adding the SSDs next summer before our high load period begins.
>
The idea of SSDs is interesting. However I think I will wait for all the
other early adopters to figure out the problems before I start
suggesting them to clients.
Hard drives work, their cheap and fast. I can get 25 spindles, 15k in a
3U with controller and battery backed cache for <$10k.
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997