| From: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net>, Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSD + RAID |
| Date: | 2009-11-19 04:39:02 |
| Message-ID: | C72A0BE6.175EE%scott@richrelevance.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 11/17/09 10:58 PM, "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm> wrote:
>
> keep in mind that bonnie++ isn't always going to reflect your real
> performance.
>
> I have run tests on some workloads that were definantly I/O limited where
> bonnie++ results that differed by a factor of 10x made no measurable
> difference in the application performance, so I can easily believe in
> cases where bonnie++ numbers would not change but application performance
> could be drasticly different.
>
Well, that is sort of true for all benchmarks, but I do find that bonnie++
is the worst of the bunch. I consider it relatively useless compared to
fio. Its just not a great benchmark for server type load and I find it
lacking in the ability to simulate real applications.
> as always it can depend heavily on your workload. you really do need to
> figure out how to get your hands on one for your own testing.
>
> David Lang
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2009-11-19 12:29:56 | Re: SSD + RAID |
| Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2009-11-19 04:35:02 | Re: SSD + RAID |