> you'd be much better served by
> putting a big NVRAM cache in front of a fast disk array
I agree with the point below, but I think price was the issue of the
original discussion. That said, it seems that a single high speed spindle
would give this a run for its money in both price and performance, and for
the same reasons Mike points out. Maybe a SCSI 160 or 320 at 15k, or maybe
even something slower.
Rick
pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 07/26/2005 01:33:43 PM:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:23:23AM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> >Yup - interesting and very niche product - it seems like it's only
obvious
> >application is for the Postgresql WAL problem :-)
>
> On the contrary--it's not obvious that it is an ideal fit for a WAL. A
> ram disk like this is optimized for highly random access applications.
> The WAL is a single sequential writer. If you're in the kind of market
> that needs a really high performance WAL you'd be much better served by
> putting a big NVRAM cache in front of a fast disk array than by buying a
> toy like this.
>
> Mike Stone
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
