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

Re: Choosing between Intel 320, Intel 510 or OCZ Vertex 3 SSD for db server

From: David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Choosing between Intel 320, Intel 510 or OCZ Vertex 3 SSD for db server
Date: 2011-10-24 16:53:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
A few quick thoughts:

1. 320 would be the only SSD I'd trust from your short-list. It's the 
only one with proper protection from unexpected power loss.
2. Multiple RAID'ed SSDs sounds like (vast) overkill for your workload. 
A single SSD should be sufficient (will get you several thousand TPS on 
pgbench for your DB size).
3. Consider not using the magnetic disks at all (saves on space, power 
and the cost of the RAID controller for them).
4. Consider using Intel 710 series rather than 320 (pay for them with 
the money saved from #3 above). Those devices have much, much higher 
specified endurance than the 320s and since your DB is quite small you 
only need to buy one of them.

On 10/24/2011 8:09 AM, Amitabh Kant wrote:
> Hello
> I need to choose between Intel 320 , Intel 510 and OCZ Vertex 3 SSD's 
> for my database server. From recent reading in the list and other 
> places, I have come to understand that OCZ Vertex 3 should not be 
> used, Intel 510 uses a Marvel controller while Intel 320 had a nasty 
> bug which has been rectified. So the list narrows down to only 510 and 
> 320, unless I have understood the OCZ Vertex reviews incorrectly.
> The server would itself be built along these lines: Dual CPU Xeon 
> 5620, 32 or 48 GB RAM, 2 SAS 10K disk in RAID 1 for OS, 2 SAS 10K disk 
> in RAID 1 for pg_xlog and 4 SSD in RAID 10 for data directory 
> (overkill??). OS would be FreeBSD 8.2 (I would be tuning the sysctl 
> variables). PG version would be 9.1 with replication set to another 
> machine (Dual CPU Xeon 54xx, 32 GB RAM, 6 15K SAS 146 GB: 4 in RAID 10 
> for data and 2 in RAID 1 for OS + pg_xlog). The second machine hosts 
> my current db , and there is not much of an issue with the 
> performance. We need better redundancy now(current was to take a 
> dump/backup every 12 hours), so the new machine.
> My database itself is not very big, approx 40 GB as of now, and would 
> not grow beyond 80 GB in the next year or two. There are some tables 
> where insert & updates are fairly frequent. From what I could gather, 
> we are not doing more than 300-400 tps at the moment, and the growth 
> should not be very high in the short term.
> Hope someone can give some pointers to which SSD I should go for at 
> the moment.
> Amitabh

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-10-24 19:31:43
Subject: Re: Tsearch2 - bad performance with concatenated ts-vectors
Previous:From: Amitabh KantDate: 2011-10-24 14:09:37
Subject: Choosing between Intel 320, Intel 510 or OCZ Vertex 3 SSD for db server

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