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

Re: Maximum Possible Insert Performance?

From: William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Maximum Possible Insert Performance?
Date: 2003-11-24 18:23:36
Message-ID: bptib8$d5s$1@news.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Josh Berkus wrote:
> William,
> 
> 
>>The SanDisks do seem a bit pokey at 16MBps. On the otherhand, you could
>>get 4 of these suckers, put them in a mega-RAID-0 stripe for 64MBps. You
>>shouldn't need to do mirroring with a solid state drive.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't count on RAID0 improving the speed of SANDisk's much.  How are you 
> connecting to them?  USB?   USB doesn't support fast parallel data access.

You can get ATA SanDisks up to 2GB. Another vendor I checked out -- 
BitMicro -- has solid state drives for SATA, SCSI and FiberChannel. I'd 
definitely would not use USB SSDs -- USB performance would be so pokey 
to be useless.

> Now, if it turns out that 256MB ramdisks are less than 1/5 the cost of 1GB 
> ramdisks, then that's worth considering.

Looks like they're linear with size. SanDisk Flashdrive 1GB is about 
$1000 while 256MB is $250.

> You're right, though, mirroring a solid state drive is pretty pointless; if 
> power fails, both mirrors are dead.  

Actually no. Solid state memory is non-volatile. They retain data even 
without power.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2003-11-24 19:29:40
Subject: Re: Problem with insert into select...
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-11-24 18:04:37
Subject: Re: Maximum Possible Insert Performance?

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