| From: | Andy <angelflow(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, David Rees <drees76(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BBU still needed with SSD? |
| Date: | 2011-07-19 01:33:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1311039230.79437.YahooMailClassic@web111310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
--- On Mon, 7/18/11, David Rees <drees76(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> In this case is BBU still needed? If I put 2 SSD
> in software RAID 1, would
> >> that be any slower than 2 SSD in HW RAID 1 with
> BBU? What are the pros and
> >> cons?
>
> What will perform better will vary greatly depending on the
> exact
> SSDs, rotating disks, RAID BBU controller and
> application. But
> certainly a couple of Intel 320s in RAID1 seem to be an
> inexpensive
> way of getting very good performance while maintaining
> reliability.
I'm not comparing SSD in SW RAID with rotating disks in HW RAID with BBU though. I'm just comparing SSDs with or without BBU. I'm going to get a couple of Intel 320s, just want to know if BBU makes sense for them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-07-19 01:38:34 | Re: cpu comparison |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-07-19 00:47:05 | Re: cpu comparison |