Re: Tip from mr. D.K. Burleson

From: Brian Peasland <dba_at_nospam.peasland.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:58:51 -0500
Message-ID: <46fbc753$0$26392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>

Helma wrote:
> On Sep 27, 3:12 pm, Gints Plivna <gints.pli..._at_gmail.com> wrote:

>> On 27 Sept., 11:47, Helma <helma.vi..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hello fellow DBA's,
>>> I've read a article from Burleson where he's an enthusiast about solid
>>> state disks:
>>> " It's important for all Oracle professionals to learn about solid-
>>> state disk to understand how I/O bottlenecks will soon become a thing
>>> of the past. "
>>> and
>>> "The ancient platter-based disks from the 1960's will soon join paper
>>> tape and punched cards in the annals of IT history. "
>>> " In my reproducible benchmarks of SSD vs. platter disks, the response
>>> time benefits of using SSD with Oracle are amazing with blistering
>>> speeds that result in up to a 300x speed improvement. "
>>> ( full read athttp://www.dba-oracle.com/t_flash_disk_drives_ssd_ram_san.htm
>>> )
>>> He doesn't mention any drawback to this SSD. Does anyone here has
>>> experience with this SSD , and is it as big as mr Burleson says?
>>> TIA,
>>> Helma
>> Seehttp://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/09-2005/threads.html#01024
>> check thread Solid State Disks for Databases
>> And especially look at answer by Cary Millsap.
>>
>> Gints Plivnahttp://www.gplivna.eu

>
> Sveiks Gints!
>
> Thanks for your reply. It seems that most of the remarks are about
> price ( and the postings are 2 years old) and of course the Amdahl's
> law - but can we sweep this one under the ceteris paribus carpet?
> It seems a price/performance issue to me - a ratio that varies over
> time. What's the latest on this? Or am i missing something else?
>
> Regards,
> Helma
>

As you have said, this is a price/performance issue. SSDs are great if your data is small. But then you may want to look at an in-memory database like Oracle's Times Ten for an option as well.

With databases growing larger and larger, storage capacity needs to be increased. Until SSDs come closer to Fibre Channel disk in terms of cost per GB, there won't be too many SSD implementations for Oracle database. I'm not saying that there won't be any, but not too many of them.

One trend I see more of these days is to go with even cheaper storage than Fibre Channel/SCSI disk units. I see many using SATA disk devices. The storage costs go way down, but there are other issues with SATA such as slower disk speeds and shorter MTBF. But for some, the cost benefits outweigh the downsides.

Cheers,
Brian

-- 
===================================================================

Brian Peasland
dba_at_nospam.peasland.net
http://www.peasland.net

Remove the "nospam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good.
Now pick two out of the three" - Unknown

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Received on Thu Sep 27 2007 - 10:58:51 CDT