<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fusion io does the hard part</title>
	<atom:link href="http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/</link>
	<description>Data storage info &#38; analysis</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:29:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Burton</title>
		<link>http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-160624</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Burton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-160624</guid>
		<description>I went benchmarks!

We're thinking of using these mtron drives:

http://feedblog.org/2007/12/13/ssd-vs-memory-the-end-is-nigh/

in Spinn3r (http://spinn3r.com)

which have 80MBps write throughput.

is the 87k here write IOPS or just read?

Their numbers would yield &#62; 700MB/s.

Does anyone have any standardizes IO benchmarks on these drives?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I went benchmarks!</p>
<p>We&#8217;re thinking of using these mtron drives:</p>
<p><a href="http://feedblog.org/2007/12/13/ssd-vs-memory-the-end-is-nigh/" rel="nofollow">http://feedblog.org/2007/12/13/ssd-vs-memory-the-end-is-nigh/</a></p>
<p>in Spinn3r (http://spinn3r.com)</p>
<p>which have 80MBps write throughput.</p>
<p>is the 87k here write IOPS or just read?</p>
<p>Their numbers would yield &gt; 700MB/s.</p>
<p>Does anyone have any standardizes IO benchmarks on these drives?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: xfer_rdy</title>
		<link>http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-160605</link>
		<dc:creator>xfer_rdy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:46:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-160605</guid>
		<description>Depending on "request to data" latency.... useful for database indexes, near ram caches (not as fast as ram), good for high performance OS implementations i.e.  read only memory mapped files like dlls and .so (first shut off auto-updates),  web server - less in ram file caching.  DNS, LDAP, Active directory databases. It could work well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Depending on &#8220;request to data&#8221; latency&#8230;. useful for database indexes, near ram caches (not as fast as ram), good for high performance OS implementations i.e.  read only memory mapped files like dlls and .so (first shut off auto-updates),  web server - less in ram file caching.  DNS, LDAP, Active directory databases. It could work well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Magda</title>
		<link>http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-160285</link>
		<dc:creator>David Magda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:08:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-160285</guid>
		<description>This could be useful for transaction logs for databases or file systems (e.g., you can specify which device(s) to put ZFS' intent log on). Things could then be shuffled off to spinning rust at a more "leisurely" manner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This could be useful for transaction logs for databases or file systems (e.g., you can specify which device(s) to put ZFS&#8217; intent log on). Things could then be shuffled off to spinning rust at a more &#8220;leisurely&#8221; manner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.234 seconds -->
