| Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Firebird writes on Flash Disks |
|---|---|
| Author | Kurt Federspiel |
| Post date | 2009-01-15T02:49:02Z |
I assume you are going to CF devices due to the environment you are putting the system into. Otherwise, from a cost-effective standpoint, CF still don't quite rate.
I've installed similar systems (about 6 with CF, another 15 with disks); we had one with a DB that reached 5G after about 6 months of use (8G CF). Recently, we had one that was being...er...difficult. A link to that thread is here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-support/message/98946
We have installed our systems in some pretty hostile environments, and I am currently leaning to the opinion that standard laptop drive provide equal functionality and slightly better performance. These devices tend to be heat resistant up to 100+ degF, resistant to bumps and shocks, and have bit better throughput (due to caching, etc) than the CF devices.
The only failure I've had in a laptop disk was a system that was in a building's mechnical room penthouse when the penthouse was hit by lightning; the system was shot, but I recovered the DB from the disk.
If you can guarantee the quality of the flash components and wear-leveling, then the extra $50 for the CF might be worth it; we did not use Kingston, and so far, I am not convinced.
If you give me a bit more info about the system, environment, etc, I might have more info based on what we've done.
Greets.
Kurt.
----------------------------------------
Never underestimate the Power of Denial.
________________________________
From: Nathan Penny <NathanP@...>
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:06:55 PM
Subject: [firebird-support] Firebird writes on Flash Disks
Hello,
We are moving our Linux distribution to flash based disks. Our only concern with this move is the number of writes Firebird is going to do to the database on the disk. We supply systems with Firebird installed and accessed only by the local system.
We will be using Kingston Compact Flash cards, with 100,000 write cycles per physical sector. The database is generally quite small, less than 50Mb, though changes happen every couple of seconds or so.
The bulk of the OS will be in a read only filesystem, with a few logs and configuration files in a writable area. The database will also be in a writable area.
We will be using a 4Gb CF, of which less than 1Gb will be used by the OS. This leaves 3Gb for the wear leveling algorithms to play with for the logs (very small) and the database.
What sort of effect will this constant writing have on the Flash Disk? Has anyone had any experience with this? Is the writing going to be severely detrimental to the life of our CF?
Many Thanks,
Nathan Penny
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I've installed similar systems (about 6 with CF, another 15 with disks); we had one with a DB that reached 5G after about 6 months of use (8G CF). Recently, we had one that was being...er...difficult. A link to that thread is here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-support/message/98946
We have installed our systems in some pretty hostile environments, and I am currently leaning to the opinion that standard laptop drive provide equal functionality and slightly better performance. These devices tend to be heat resistant up to 100+ degF, resistant to bumps and shocks, and have bit better throughput (due to caching, etc) than the CF devices.
The only failure I've had in a laptop disk was a system that was in a building's mechnical room penthouse when the penthouse was hit by lightning; the system was shot, but I recovered the DB from the disk.
If you can guarantee the quality of the flash components and wear-leveling, then the extra $50 for the CF might be worth it; we did not use Kingston, and so far, I am not convinced.
If you give me a bit more info about the system, environment, etc, I might have more info based on what we've done.
Greets.
Kurt.
----------------------------------------
Never underestimate the Power of Denial.
________________________________
From: Nathan Penny <NathanP@...>
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:06:55 PM
Subject: [firebird-support] Firebird writes on Flash Disks
Hello,
We are moving our Linux distribution to flash based disks. Our only concern with this move is the number of writes Firebird is going to do to the database on the disk. We supply systems with Firebird installed and accessed only by the local system.
We will be using Kingston Compact Flash cards, with 100,000 write cycles per physical sector. The database is generally quite small, less than 50Mb, though changes happen every couple of seconds or so.
The bulk of the OS will be in a read only filesystem, with a few logs and configuration files in a writable area. The database will also be in a writable area.
We will be using a 4Gb CF, of which less than 1Gb will be used by the OS. This leaves 3Gb for the wear leveling algorithms to play with for the logs (very small) and the database.
What sort of effect will this constant writing have on the Flash Disk? Has anyone had any experience with this? Is the writing going to be severely detrimental to the life of our CF?
Many Thanks,
Nathan Penny
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]