drive.
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Michael March wrote:
> If anyone is interested I just completed a series of benchmarks of stock
> Postgresql running on a normal HDD vs a SSD.
>
> If you don't want to read the post, the summary is that SSDs are 5 to 7
> times faster than
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Michael March wrote:
> > If anyone is interested I just completed a series of benchmarks of stock
> > Postgresql running on a normal HDD vs a SSD.
> > If you don't want to read the post, the summary is that SSDs are 5 to 7
> &
ll not be
> lost if power fails (most hard drives with a sane OS and file system do).
>
What feature does an SSD need to have to insure that sync'd data is indeed
written to the SSD in the case of power loss?
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Michael March wrote:
>
&g
If anyone is interested I just completed a series of benchmarks of stock
Postgresql running on a normal HDD vs a SSD.
If you don't want to read the post, the summary is that SSDs are 5 to 7
times faster than a 7200RPM HDD drive under a pgbench load.
http://it-blog.5amsolutions.com/2010/08/perform
