4 ms·

I don't think so - the decision which media to use is linked to a lot of factors (type of database, amount&size of data written/read, type of filesystem, costs,

I don't think so - the decision which media to use is linked to a lot of factors (type of database, amount&size of data written/read, type of filesystem, costs, durability, expectations, etc...).

himinlomax 6y ago
You don't think so, I know so. There are a few edge cases where spinning disks could be acceptable, but none where they are superior anymore. Cost? Maybe if you're not billed for electricity. And the cost of hardware is beer money compared to admin/dev/architect time. Durability? Drives of both technology vary in durability based on market class. Enterprise disks are superior to cheap consumer SSDs in that respect, but within the same class SSDs are superior. Type of database? Well if your database is used mostly for sequential reads, in other words when it's for most intents and purposes used like a flat file would be, you're in that edge case. Few individual databases are like that, though admittedly those that are can be very large. Data written/read? Early SSDs were admittedly prone to wearing off with heavy writes. We're long past that, except if you're talking about dodgy SD cards but you're not putting a database on that, are you? Types of filesystems? Just no. Hard drives are cheaper per byte. Significantly cheaper, but not even an order of magnitude cheaper anymore. They use more power, their random access time is orderS of magnitude slower, and their sequential transfer rate is slower. Hell even sequential write is not better any more. But I'll concede this, if you look long and hard enough, I'm sure you can find that one odd case where a database is marginally better served by spinning disks.
- rasz 6y ago
  >We're long past that its the other way around, we are currently somewhere between 150 and 1000 write cycle endurance and going down with every new node upgrade/cell density bump. https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/write-cycle https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/write-cycle
- effie 6y ago
  Do you know about OS-level I/O caching/buffering? They make the sequential speed more important. And in case one wants to get faster, there is no need to go all SSD. There is often a lot of data but I/O touches only small part of it, so one can use few fast cache SSDs + many spinning disks in a cluster to achieve good enough performance with better price. There you go, spinning drives still make a lot of sense.
- zepearl 6y ago
  You seem to be 100% sure about what you wrote (no doubts, questions, clarifications, investigations, discussions, etc...) => go ahead, with that kind of knowledge and attitude you'll most probably be successful at anything that you'll do from every point of view.

I don't think so - the decision which media to use is linked to a lot of factors (type of database, amount&size of data written/read, type of filesystem, costs, durability, expectations, etc...).

himinlomax 6y ago

You don't think so, I know so. There are a few edge cases where spinning disks could be acceptable, but none where they are superior anymore. Cost? Maybe if you're not billed for electricity. And the cost of hardware is beer money compared to admin/dev/architect time. Durability? Drives of both technology vary in durability based on market class. Enterprise disks are superior to cheap consumer SSDs in that respect, but within the same class SSDs are superior. Type of database? Well if your database is used mostly for sequential reads, in other words when it's for most intents and purposes used like a flat file would be, you're in that edge case. Few individual databases are like that, though admittedly those that are can be very large. Data written/read? Early SSDs were admittedly prone to wearing off with heavy writes. We're long past that, except if you're talking about dodgy SD cards but you're not putting a database on that, are you? Types of filesystems? Just no. Hard drives are cheaper per byte. Significantly cheaper, but not even an order of magnitude cheaper anymore. They use more power, their random access time is orderS of magnitude slower, and their sequential transfer rate is slower. Hell even sequential write is not better any more. But I'll concede this, if you look long and hard enough, I'm sure you can find that one odd case where a database is marginally better served by spinning disks.

rasz 6y ago
>We're long past that its the other way around, we are currently somewhere between 150 and 1000 write cycle endurance and going down with every new node upgrade/cell density bump. https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/write-cycle https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/write-cycle
effie 6y ago
Do you know about OS-level I/O caching/buffering? They make the sequential speed more important. And in case one wants to get faster, there is no need to go all SSD. There is often a lot of data but I/O touches only small part of it, so one can use few fast cache SSDs + many spinning disks in a cluster to achieve good enough performance with better price. There you go, spinning drives still make a lot of sense.
zepearl 6y ago
You seem to be 100% sure about what you wrote (no doubts, questions, clarifications, investigations, discussions, etc...) => go ahead, with that kind of knowledge and attitude you'll most probably be successful at anything that you'll do from every point of view.