From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SSD selection |
Date: | 2012-05-15 17:22:20 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0x-_ZrtwFv5HOjQm8WdgoZQPFb=9oO+11WoN3BDqGjxdQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:08 PM, David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org> wrote:
>> We've reached to the point when we would like to try SSDs. We've got a
>> central DB currently 414 GB in size and increasing. Working set does not fit
>> into our 96GB RAM server anymore.
>> So, the main question is what to take. Here what we've got:
>> 1) Intel 320. Good, but slower then current generation sandforce drives
>> 2) Intel 330. Looks like cheap 520 without capacitor
>> 3) Intel 520. faster then 320 No capacitor.
>> 4) OCZ Vertex 3 Pro - No available. Even on OCZ site
>> 5) OCZ Deneva - can't find in my country :)
>>
>
> Is the 710 series too costly for your deployment ?
> I ask because that would be the obvious choice for a database (much better
> write endurance than any of the drives above, and less likely to suffer from
> firmware bugs or unpleasant GC behavior).
> We've been running them in production for a few months with zero problems
> and great performance.
> The price on the 710's tends to vary on whether they're in stock : NewEgg is
> currently showing $1100 for the 300G drive, but no stock.
this. I think you have two choices today -- intel 320 and intel 710
depending on how much writing you plan to do. ocz vertex 3 might be a
3rd choice, but it's vaporware atm.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2012-05-15 17:53:57 | Re: Configuration Recommendations |
Previous Message | David Boreham | 2012-05-15 17:08:06 | Re: SSD selection |