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


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: 2009-11-17 16:36:26
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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).

I am right now talking to someone on postgresql irc who is measuring
15k iops from x25-e and no data loss following power plug test.  I am
becoming increasingly suspicious that peter's results are not
representative: given that 90% of bonnie++ seeks are read only, the
math doesn't add up, and they contradict broadly published tests on
the internet.  Has anybody independently verified the results?


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Brad NicholsonDate: 2009-11-17 16:54:42
Subject: Re: SSD + RAID
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-11-17 16:30:14
Subject: Re: Performance regression 8.3.8 -> 8.4.1 with NOT EXISTS

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group