Re: Fusion-io ioDrive

From: "Jeffrey Baker" <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fusion-io ioDrive
Date: 2008-07-07 16:10:37
Message-ID: fd145f7d0807070910w413328favf8b2fb656e1c96a8@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Service Time Percentile, millis
>>> R/W TPS R-O TPS 50th 80th 90th 95th
>>> RAID 182 673 18 32 42 64
>>> Fusion 971 4792 8 9 10 11
>>
>> Someone asked for bonnie++ output:
>>
>> Block output: 495MB/s, 81% CPU
>> Block input: 676MB/s, 93% CPU
>> Block rewrite: 262MB/s, 59% CPU
>>
>> Pretty respectable. In the same ballpark as an HP MSA70 + P800 with
>> 25 spindles.
>
> You left off the 'seeks' portion of the bonnie++ results -- this is
> actually the most important portion of the test. Based on your tps
> #s, I'm expecting seeks equiv of about 10 10k drives in configured in
> a raid 10, or around 1000-1500. They didn't publish any prices so
> it's hard to say if this is 'cost competitive'.

I left it out because bonnie++ reports it as "+++++" i.e. greater than
or equal to 100000 per second.

-jwb

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PFC 2008-07-07 17:50:30 Re: Fusion-io ioDrive
Previous Message Jonah H. Harris 2008-07-07 15:09:22 Re: Fusion-io ioDrive