Re: Choosing between Intel 320, Intel 510 or OCZ Vertex 3 SSD for db server

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:23 PM, David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>wrote:

>
> A few quick thoughts:
>
> 1. 320 would be the only SSD I'd trust from your short-list. It's the only
> one with proper protection from unexpected power loss.
> 2. Multiple RAID'ed SSDs sounds like (vast) overkill for your workload. A
> single SSD should be sufficient (will get you several thousand TPS on
> pgbench for your DB size).
> 3. Consider not using the magnetic disks at all (saves on space, power and
> the cost of the RAID controller for them).
> 4. Consider using Intel 710 series rather than 320 (pay for them with the
> money saved from #3 above). Those devices have much, much higher specified
> endurance than the 320s and since your DB is quite small you only need to
> buy one of them.
>
>
> On 10/24/2011 8:09 AM, Amitabh Kant wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I need to choose between Intel 320 , Intel 510 and OCZ Vertex 3 SSD's for
>> my database server. From recent reading in the list and other places, I have
>> come to understand that OCZ Vertex 3 should not be used, Intel 510 uses a
>> Marvel controller while Intel 320 had a nasty bug which has been rectified.
>> So the list narrows down to only 510 and 320, unless I have understood the
>> OCZ Vertex reviews incorrectly.
>>
>> The server would itself be built along these lines: Dual CPU Xeon 5620, 32
>> or 48 GB RAM, 2 SAS 10K disk in RAID 1 for OS, 2 SAS 10K disk in RAID 1 for
>> pg_xlog and 4 SSD in RAID 10 for data directory (overkill??). OS would be
>> FreeBSD 8.2 (I would be tuning the sysctl variables). PG version would be
>> 9.1 with replication set to another machine (Dual CPU Xeon 54xx, 32 GB RAM,
>> 6 15K SAS 146 GB: 4 in RAID 10 for data and 2 in RAID 1 for OS + pg_xlog).
>> The second machine hosts my current db , and there is not much of an issue
>> with the performance. We need better redundancy now(current was to take a
>> dump/backup every 12 hours), so the new machine.
>>
>> My database itself is not very big, approx 40 GB as of now, and would not
>> grow beyond 80 GB in the next year or two. There are some tables where
>> insert & updates are fairly frequent. From what I could gather, we are not
>> doing more than 300-400 tps at the moment, and the growth should not be very
>> high in the short term.
>>
>> Hope someone can give some pointers to which SSD I should go for at the
>> moment.
>>
>>
>> Amitabh
>>
>>
Sadly, 710 is not that easily available around here at the moment.

Amitabh