On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Andy <angelflow(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> According to the specs for database storage:
> "Random 4KB arites: Up to 600 IOPS"
> Is that for real? 600 IOPS is *atrociously terrible* for an SSD. Not much
> faster than mechanical disks.
Keep in mind that the 600 IOPS is over the entire disk. performance
is much better over smaller spans - I suspect the 23,000 IOPS you
might see on the larger disks over an 8GB span are best case scenario,
Moral of the story? If you want the most performance, over-size your
SSD and "short-stroke" it. Interesting to see that the 300/600GB
drives lose random write IOPS on the 100% span test over the smaller
disks - wonder if you limit access to the first 160GB if performance
matches the 160GB disk. I kind of suspect that once you get to 20k+
random write IOPS over 8GB you've hit a controller limit on the SSD
since performance there reaches it's peak with the 300GB drive and the
160GB drive is less than 10% slower.
> Has anyone done any performance benchmark of 320 used as a DB storage? Is it
> really that slow?
Have the 120GB in my notebook. Could run some tests if people are interested.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: MirrorX||Date: 2011-08-25 00:32:35|
|Subject: Re: How to track number of connections and hosts to Postgres
|Previous:||From: david||Date: 2011-08-24 20:27:03|
|Subject: Re: Reports from SSD purgatory|