Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD

From: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD
Date: 2010-08-13 05:59:29
Message-ID: 4C64DF41.40803@tweakers.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 13-8-2010 1:40 Scott Carey wrote:
> Agreed. There is a HUGE gap between "ooh ssd's are fast, look!" and
> engineering a solution that uses them properly with all their
> strengths and faults. And as 'gnuoytr' points out, there is a big
> difference between an Intel SSD and say, this thing:
> http://www.nimbusdata.com/products/s-class_overview.html

From the description it sounds as if its either FreeBSD or OpenSolaris
with ZFS with some webinterface-layer. That's not a bad thing per se,
but as the site suggests its 'only' $25k for the smallest (2.5TB?)
device. That makes it very likely that it are "off the shelf" MLC flash
drives. Given the design of the device and the pricing it probably are
your average 2.5"-drives with 100, 200 or 400GB capacity (maybe OCZ
vertex 2 pro, which do have such a capacitor?), similar to the Intel SSD
you compared it to.
And than we're basically back to square one, unless the devices have a
capacitor or ZFS works better with SSD-drives to begin with (it will at
least know silent data corruption did occur).

There are of course devices that are not built on top of normal disk
form factor SSD-drives like the Ramsan devices or Sun's F5100.

Best regards,

Arjen

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael March 2010-08-13 06:06:59 Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD
Previous Message Scott Carey 2010-08-12 23:40:11 Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD