?The Crucial drive does not have power loss protection. The Samsung drive does.
(The Crucial M550 has capacitors to protect data that's already been written to
the device but not the entire cache. For instance, if data is read from the
device during a garbage collection operation, the M550
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> Disabling write back cache for write heavy database loads will will
>> destroy it in short order due to write amplication and will
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>> Disabling write back cache for write heavy database loads
It's a Crucial CT250MX200SSD1 and a Samsung MZ7LM480HCHP-3.
Regards,
Kaixi
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 06/07/16 07:17, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We had a similar situation and the best performance was with 64MB
I was using the pg_activity monitoring tool, which I find quite awesome.
https://github.com/julmon/pg_activity
There are 3 btree indexes, here's the definition of the table itself:
Table "audits.audits"
Column |Type
> Regarding write back cache:
> Disabling the write back cache won't have a real large impact on the
> endurance of the drive unless it reduces the total number of bytes written
> (which it won't). I've seen drives that perform better with it disabled and
> drives that perform better with it
On 08/07/16 02:09, Wes Vaske (wvaske) wrote:
?The Crucial drive does not have power loss protection. The Samsung drive does.
(The Crucial M550 has capacitors to protect data that's already been written to the
device but not the entire cache. For instance, if data is read from the device