On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 06:06:02PM +0000, Rick Otten wrote:
> >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?
>
> If you lose power to a member of the cluster (or even the master), you
> would have new data coming in and stuff to do long before it could
> come back online - corrupted disk or not.
>
> I find it hard to imagine configuring something that is too critical
> to be able to be restored from periodic backup to NOT be in a
> (synchronous) cluster. I'm not sure all the fuss over whether an SSD
> might come back after a hard server failure is really about. You
> should architect the solution so you can lose the server and throw
> it away and never bring it back online again. Native streaming
> replication is fairly straightforward to configure. Asynchronous
> multimaster (albeit with some synchronization latency) is also fairly
> easy to configure using third party tools such as SymmetricDS.
>
> Agreed that adding a supercap doesn't sound like a hard thing for
> a hardware manufacturer to do, but I don't think it should be a
> necessarily be showstopper for being able to take advantage of some
> awesome I/O performance opportunities.
Do you want to recreate the server if it loses power over an extra $100
per drive?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +