<p><font size="2">> From: Doug McNaught [<a href="mailto:doug@mcnaught.org">mailto:doug@mcnaught.org</a>]</font><br
/><fontsize="2">> </font><br /><font size="2">> "Bort, Paul" <pbort@tmwsystems.com> writes:</font><br
/><fontsize="2">> </font><br /><font size="2">> > One other thought: How does static RAM compare to disk
</font><br/><font size="2">> speed nowadays?</font><br /><font size="2">> > A 1Gb flash drive might be
reasonablefor the WAL if it </font><br /><font size="2">> can keep up.</font><br /><font size="2">> </font><br
/><fontsize="2">> Flash RAM "wears out"; it's not suitable for a continuously-updated</font><br /><font
size="2">>application like WAL.</font><br /><font size="2">> </font><br /><font size="2">> -Doug</font><br
/><fontsize="2">> </font><p><font size="2">But if it's even 2x faster than a disk, that might be worth wearing them
out.Given that they have published write count limits, one could reasonably plan to replace the memory after half of
thattime and be comfortable with the lifecycle. I saw somewhere that even with continuous writes on USB 2.0, it would
takeabout twelve years to exhaust the write life of a typical flash drive. Even an order-of-magnitude increase in
throughputbeyond that only calls for a new drive every year. (Or every six months if you're paranoid. If you're that
paranoid,you can mirror them, too.)</font><p><font size="2">Whether USB 2.0 is fast enought for the WAL is a separate
discussion.</font>
