From: | Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Testing Sandforce SSD |
Date: | 2010-08-05 12:40:37 |
Message-ID: | 4C5AB145.1050305@ca.afilias.info |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 10-08-04 03:49 PM, Scott Carey wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Yeb Havinga<yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> After a week testing I think I can answer the question above: does it work
>>> like it's supposed to under PostgreSQL?
>>>
>>> YES
>>>
>>> The drive I have tested is the $435,- 50GB OCZ Vertex 2 Pro,
>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227534
>>>
>>> * it is safe to mount filesystems with barrier off, since it has a 'supercap
>>> backed cache'. That data is not lost is confirmed by a dozen power switch
>>> off tests while running either diskchecker.pl or pgbench.
>>> * the above implies its also safe to use this SSD with barriers, though that
>>> will perform less, since this drive obeys write trough commands.
>>> * the highest pgbench tps number for the TPC-B test for a scale 300 database
>>> (~5GB) I could get was over 6700. Judging from the iostat average util of
>>> ~40% on the xlog partition, I believe that this number is limited by other
>>> factors than the SSD, like CPU, core count, core MHz, memory size/speed, 8.4
>>> pgbench without threads. Unfortunately I don't have a faster/more core
>>> machines available for testing right now.
>>> * pgbench numbers for a larger than RAM database, read only was over 25000
>>> tps (details are at the end of this post), during which iostat reported
>>> ~18500 read iops and 100% utilization.
>>> * pgbench max reported latencies are 20% of comparable BBWC setups.
>>> * how reliable it is over time, and how it performs over time I cannot say,
>>> since I tested it only for a week.
>> Thank you very much for posting this analysis. This has IMNSHO the
>> potential to be a game changer. There are still some unanswered
>> questions in terms of how the drive wears, reliability, errors, and
>> lifespan but 6700 tps off of a single 400$ device with decent fault
>> tolerance is amazing (Intel, consider yourself upstaged). Ever since
>> the first samsung SSD hit the market I've felt the days of the
>> spinning disk have been numbered. Being able to build a 100k tps
>> server on relatively inexpensive hardware without an entire rack full
>> of drives is starting to look within reach.
> Intel's next gen 'enterprise' SSD's are due out later this year. I have heard from those with access to to test samples that they really like them -- these people rejected the previous versions because of the data loss on power failure.
>
> So, hopefully there will be some interesting competition later this year in the medium price range enterprise ssd market.
>
I'll be doing some testing on Enterprise grade SSD's this year. I'll
also be looking at some hybrid storage products that use as SSD's as
accelerators mixed with lower cost storage.
--
Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sean Chen | 2010-08-05 17:49:54 | vacuum performance on insert |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-04 20:46:05 | Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem |