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

Re: Intel SSDs that may not suck

From: Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Intel SSDs that may not suck
Date: 2011-03-29 16:12:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 2011-03-29 16:16, Jeff wrote:
>  halt for 0.5-2 seconds, then resume. The fix we're going to do is
>  replace each drive in order with the rebuild occuring between each.
>  Then we do a security erase to reset the drive back to completely
>  empty (including the "spare" blocks kept around for writes).

Are you replacing the drives with new once, or just secure-erase and 
back in?
What kind of numbers are you drawing out of smartmontools in usage figures?
(Also seeing some write-stalls here, on 24 Raid50 volumes of x25m's, and
have been planning to cycle drives for quite some time, without actually
getting to it.

>  Now that all sounds awful and horrible until you get to overall
>  performance, especially with reads - you are looking at 20k random
>  reads per second with a few disks. Adding in writes does kick it
>  down a noch, but you're still looking at 10k+ iops. That is the
>  current trade off.

Thats also my experience.

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: gnuoytrDate: 2011-03-29 16:48:04
Subject: Re: Intel SSDs that may not suck
Previous:From: Strange, John WDate: 2011-03-29 15:32:16
Subject: Re: Intel SSDs that may not suck

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