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

Re: SSD + RAID

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2009-11-13 21:09:18
Message-ID: b42b73150911131309p392156a4ud9b7bc9ef6270aaa@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
2009/11/13 Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> As far as what real-world apps have that profile, I like SSDs for small to
> medium web applications that have to be responsive, where the user shows up
> and wants their randomly distributed and uncached data with minimal latency.
> SSDs can also be used effectively as second-tier targeted storage for things
> that have a performance-critical but small and random bit as part of a
> larger design that doesn't have those characteristics; putting indexes on
> SSD can work out well for example (and there the write durability stuff
> isn't quite as critical, as you can always drop an index and rebuild if it
> gets corrupted).


Here's a bonnie++ result for Intel showing 14k seeks:
http://www.wlug.org.nz/HarddiskBenchmarks

bonnie++ only writes data back 10% of the time.  Why is Peter's
benchmark showing only 400 seeks? Is this all attributable to write
barrier? I'm not sure I'm buying that...

merlin

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2009-11-13 21:09:59
Subject: Re: SSD + RAID
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2009-11-13 21:06:20
Subject: Re: SSD + RAID

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