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

Re: Testing Sandforce SSD

From: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD
Date: 2010-07-26 19:42:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Greg Smith wrote:
> Yeb Havinga wrote:
>> Please remember that particular graphs are from a read/write pgbench 
>> run on a bigger than RAM database that ran for some time (so with 
>> checkpoints), on a *single* $435 50GB drive without BBU raid controller.
> To get similar *average* performance results you'd need to put about 4 
> drives and a BBU into a server.  The worst-case latency on that 
> solution is pretty bad though, when a lot of random writes are queued 
> up; I suspect that's where the SSD will look much better.
> By the way:  if you want to run a lot more tests in an organized 
> fashion, that's what was 
> written to do.  That will spit out graphs by client and by scale 
> showing how sensitive the test results are to each.
Got it, running the default config right now.

When you say 'comparable to a small array' - could you give a ballpark 
figure for 'small'?

Yeb Havinga

PS: Some update on the testing: I did some ext3,ext4,xfs,jfs and also 
ext2 tests on the just-in-memory read/write test. (scale 300) No real 
winners or losers, though ext2 isn't really faster and the manual need 
for fix (y) during boot makes it impractical in its standard 
configuration. I did some poweroff tests with barriers explicitily off 
in ext3, ext4 and xfs, still all recoveries went ok.

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Yeb HavingaDate: 2010-07-26 19:43:45
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-07-26 18:42:33
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group