Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Testing Sandforce SSD

From: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD
Date: 2010-07-28 13:45:23
Message-ID: 4C503473.5080105@gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 03:23:20PM -0600, Greg Spiegelberg wrote:
>> I know I'm talking development now but is there a case for a pg_xlog 
>> block
>> device to remove the file system overhead and guaranteeing your data is
>> written sequentially every time?
>
> If you dedicate a partition to xlog, you already get that in practice 
> with no extra devlopment.
Due to the LBA remapping of the SSD, I'm not sure of putting files that 
are sequentially written in a different partition (together with e.g. 
tables) would make a difference: in the end the SSD will have a set new 
blocks in it's buffer and somehow arrange them into sets of 128KB of 
256KB writes for the flash chips. See also 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2899/2

But I ran out of ideas to test, so I'm going to test it anyway.

regards,
Yeb Havinga


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Yeb HavingaDate: 2010-07-28 15:18:27
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD
Previous:From: Michael StoneDate: 2010-07-28 12:24:00
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group