| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net>, Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSD + RAID |
| Date: | 2009-11-13 21:09:18 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150911131309p392156a4ud9b7bc9ef6270aaa@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2009/11/13 Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> As far as what real-world apps have that profile, I like SSDs for small to
> medium web applications that have to be responsive, where the user shows up
> and wants their randomly distributed and uncached data with minimal latency.
> SSDs can also be used effectively as second-tier targeted storage for things
> that have a performance-critical but small and random bit as part of a
> larger design that doesn't have those characteristics; putting indexes on
> SSD can work out well for example (and there the write durability stuff
> isn't quite as critical, as you can always drop an index and rebuild if it
> gets corrupted).
Here's a bonnie++ result for Intel showing 14k seeks:
http://www.wlug.org.nz/HarddiskBenchmarks
bonnie++ only writes data back 10% of the time. Why is Peter's
benchmark showing only 400 seeks? Is this all attributable to write
barrier? I'm not sure I'm buying that...
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-11-13 21:09:59 | Re: SSD + RAID |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-11-13 21:06:20 | Re: SSD + RAID |