On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> wrote:
>
>
> ANY disk that says "write is complete" when it really is not is entirely
> unsuitable for ANY real database use. It is simply a matter of time
>
>
> What about read only slaves where there's a master with 100+spinning
> hard drives "getting it right" and you need a half dozen or so read
> slaves? I can imagine that being ok, as long as you don't restart a
> server after a crash without checking on it.
>
>
> A read-only slave isn't read-only, is it?
>
> I mean, c'mon - how does the data get there?
Well, duh. However, what I'm looking at is having two big servers in
failover running on solid reliable hardware, and then a small army of
read only slony slaves that are used for things like sending user rss
feeds and creating weekly reports and such. These 1U machines with 12
to 24 cores and a single SSD drive are "disposable" in terms that if
they ever crash, there's a simple script to run that reinits the db
and then subscribes them to the set.
My point being, no matter how terrible an idea a certain storage media
is, there's always a use case for it. Even if it's very narrow.