From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David F(dot) Skoll" <dfs(at)roaringpenguin(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Opinions on SSDs |
Date: | 2013-08-12 15:33:04 |
Message-ID: | 52090030.4000503@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On 08/12/2013 08:28 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We run a fairly write-intensive workload and are looking at upgrading
> our Pg servers. (PostgreSQL 9.1; no practical way to upgrade to 9.2 for
> a while because we use what's packaged with Debian.)
>
> I'm considering the following configuration:
>
> Dual 4-core Intel CPU (E5620 at 2.4GHz)
>
> 192GB of RAM
>
> Sixteen 240GB Intel SSD 520 series drives arranged using Linux
> RAID-10. The RAID 10 array will use eight mirrored stripes using the
> "offset-copies" RAID10 scheme.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Has anyone had experience with Intel 520 SSDs? Are they reliable?
> When they fail, do they fail nicely (ie, failure detected and bad drive
> removed from RAID array) or horribly (data silently corrupted...) ?
I don't recall if the 520s have powerloss protection but you will want
to check that.
>
> 2) Is this RAID arrangement sensible? I've seen reports where some
> people keep the pg_xlog directory on a separate RAID array, but I
> don't really see the advantage with SSDs.
Put the pg_xlog on spindles, they are more than fast enough and won't
eat up the write life of your SSDs.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig James | 2013-08-12 15:39:38 | Re: Opinions on SSDs |
Previous Message | David F. Skoll | 2013-08-12 15:28:33 | Opinions on SSDs |