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

Re: Intel 320 SSD info

From: David Rees <drees76(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andy <angelflow(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Intel 320 SSD info
Date: 2011-08-24 20:50:35
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Andy <angelflow(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> According to the specs for database storage:
> "Random 4KB arites: Up to 600 IOPS"
> Is that for real? 600 IOPS is *atrociously terrible* for an SSD. Not much
> faster than mechanical disks.

Keep in mind that the 600 IOPS is over the entire disk.  performance
is much better over smaller spans - I suspect the 23,000 IOPS you
might see on the larger disks over an 8GB span are best case scenario,

Moral of the story?  If you want the most performance, over-size your
SSD and "short-stroke" it.  Interesting to see that the 300/600GB
drives lose random write IOPS on the 100% span test over the smaller
disks - wonder if you limit access to the first 160GB if performance
matches the 160GB disk.  I kind of suspect that once you get to 20k+
random write IOPS over 8GB you've hit a controller limit on the SSD
since performance there reaches it's peak with the 300GB drive and the
160GB drive is less than 10% slower.

> Has anyone done any performance benchmark of 320 used as a DB storage? Is it
> really that slow?

Have the 120GB in my notebook.  Could run some tests if people are interested.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: MirrorXDate: 2011-08-25 00:32:35
Subject: Re: How to track number of connections and hosts to Postgres cluster
Previous:From: davidDate: 2011-08-24 20:27:03
Subject: Re: Reports from SSD purgatory

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