[mythtv-users] SSD disk for DB

jedi jedi at mishnet.org
Tue Oct 9 02:08:23 UTC 2012


On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 04:40:15PM -0500, Douglas Wagner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ronald Frazier" <ron at ronfrazier.net>
> >
> > > >What you have said above is true for Flash disks like SDHC,
> > > > Compact Flash, etc but is not true for SSDs. These can be treated
> > > > just like a normal hard disk.
> > >
> > > Not entire true. They are still subject to wear out, but due to wear
> > > leveling you are talking about sectors going bad in years, rather than
> > > flash drives, where in the pathological case you could see sectors
> > > failing in just days. That said, you still do have to take some steps
> > > to get the best life out of the drive.
> >
> > Nope: SSDs are made of *RAM*.  If you want them to retain anything at all
> > they have to be battery backed.  And being made of RAM, they aren't subject
> > to wear-leveling or anything; they don't wear any more than main memory
> > does.
> >
> > In fact, unless you need a whole lot of ephemeral storage on a system
> > where it's impractical to install it as main memory and make a ramdisk
> > out of it, they have little justification -- especially at their price,
> > which is uniformly pretty high.

[deletia]

> No offence Jay, but you might want to check your source on this comment
> since I FULLY believe you've got some misinformation here.

   It sounds like his information is a bit out of date. I worked with an
enterprise grade SSD device in 2001 that fits his description. A Crucial
or OCZ SSD is nothing like that though.

[deletia]

   SSD's are great for random IO which is what you tend to hit hard with
most databases. 



More information about the mythtv-users mailing list