| From: | Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>, PostgreSQL - Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Testing FusionIO |
| Date: | 2010-03-17 13:03:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1268831008.4412.1736.camel@bnicholson-desktop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 14:30 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 09:38 -0800, Ben Chobot wrote:
> > We've enjoyed our FusionIO drives very much. They can do 100k iops
> > without breaking a sweat.
>
> Yeah, performance is excellent. I bet we could get more, but CPU was
> bottleneck in our test, since it was just a demo server :(
Did you test the drive in all three modes? If so, what sort of
differences did you see.
I've been hearing bad things from some folks about the quality of the
FusionIO drives from a durability standpoint. I'm Unsure if this is
vendor specific bias or not, but considering the source (which not
vendor specific), I don't think so.
--
Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pitts | 2010-03-17 13:11:15 | Re: Testing FusionIO |
| Previous Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2010-03-17 12:30:58 | Re: Testing FusionIO |