From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BBU still needed with SSD? |
Date: | 2011-07-19 10:19:37 |
Message-ID: | 4E255A39.4000304@2ndQuadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 07/18/2011 11:56 PM, Andy wrote:
> I'm talking about after I get 2 Intel 320s, should I spend the extra
> money on a RAID BBU? Adding RAID BBU in this case wouldn't improve
> reliability, but does it improve performance? If so, how much
> improvement can it bring?
It won't improve performance enough that I would bother. The main
benefit of adding a RAID with BBU to traditional disks is that you can
commit much, much faster to the card RAM than the disks can spin. You
can go from 100 commits/second to 10,000 commits/second that way (in
theory--actually getting >2000 at the database level is harder).
Since the Intel 320 drives can easily hit 2000 to 4000 commits/second on
their own, using the cache that's built-in to the drive, the advantage
of adding a RAID card on top of that is pretty minimal. Adding a RAID
cache will help some, because that layer will be faster than the SSD at
absorbing writes, and putting another cache layer into a system always
helps with improving burst performance. But you'd probably be better
off using the same money to add more RAM, or more/bigger SSD drives.
The fundamental thing that RAID BBU units do--speed up commits--you will
only see minimal benefit from with these SSDs.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yeb Havinga | 2011-07-19 10:35:37 | Re: BBU still needed with SSD? |
Previous Message | Florian Weimer | 2011-07-19 07:56:54 | Re: BBU still needed with SSD? |