Re: SSD + RAID

From: Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>
To: Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSD + RAID
Date: 2009-11-19 04:06:42
Message-ID: C72A0452.175DD%scott@richrelevance.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 11/13/09 10:21 AM, "Karl Denninger" <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> wrote:

>
> One caution for those thinking of doing this - the incremental
> improvement of this setup on PostGresql in WRITE SIGNIFICANT environment
> isn't NEARLY as impressive. Indeed the performance in THAT case for
> many workloads may only be 20 or 30% faster than even "reasonably
> pedestrian" rotating media in a high-performance (lots of spindles and
> thus stripes) configuration and it's more expensive (by a lot.) If you
> step up to the fast SAS drives on the rotating side there's little
> argument for the SSD at all (again, assuming you don't intend to "cheat"
> and risk data loss.)

For your database DATA disks, leaving the write cache on is 100% acceptable,
even with power loss, and without a RAID controller. And even in high write
environments.

That is what the XLOG is for, isn't it? That is where this behavior is
critical. But that has completely different performance requirements and
need not bee on the same volume, array, or drive.

>
> Know your application and benchmark it.
>
> -- Karl
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Carey 2009-11-19 04:22:29 Re: SSD + RAID
Previous Message Kenny Gorman 2009-11-18 22:59:36 Re: SSD + RAID