Re: Very poor read performance, query independent

From: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Charles Nadeau <charles(dot)nadeau(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-performa(dot)" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Very poor read performance, query independent
Date: 2017-07-15 23:48:08
Message-ID: 70ce3831-fe97-fd63-35ec-a0f5b6e5f31b@catalyst.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Right, that is a bit of a show stopper for those SSD (the Intel needs
SATA 6Gb/s and the Sammy's need PCIe 3.0 to perform to their rated specs).

regards

Mark

On 16/07/17 04:12, Charles Nadeau wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The server is a . It doesn't really work with SATA drives. And when
> you find one that is compatible, it is only used at 3Gb/s with a
> maximum of 50000 IOPS (a well know caracteristic of the HP P410i SAS
> RAID controller). I am looking at getting a Kingston Digital HyperX
> Predator that I could use in one of the PCIe 2.0 x4 slot. However I am
> worried about the "thermal runaway", i.e. when the server can't get a
> temperature reading from a PCIe card, it spins the fans at full speed
> to protect the server against high temperature. The machine being next
> to my desk I worry about the deafening noise it will create.
> Thanks!
>
> Chales
>
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Mark Kirkwood
> <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz <mailto:mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>>
> wrote:
>
> Thinking about this a bit more - if somewhat more blazing
> performance is needed, then this could be achieved via losing the
> RAID card and spinning disks altogether and buying 1 of the NVME
> or SATA solid state products: e.g
>
> - Samsung 960 Pro or Evo 2 TB (approx 1 or 2 GB/s seq scan speeds
> and 200K IOPS)
>
> - Intel S3610 or similar 1.2 TB (500 MB/s seq scan and 30K IOPS)
>
>
> The Samsung needs an M.2 port on the mobo (but most should have
> 'em - and if not PCIe X4 adapter cards are quite cheap). The Intel
> is a bit more expensive compared to the Samsung, and is slower but
> has a longer lifetime. However for your workload the Sammy is
> probably fine.
>
> regards
>
> Mark
>
> On 15/07/17 11:09, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
> Ah yes - that seems more sensible (but still slower than I
> would expect for 5 disks RAID 0).
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list
> (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> <mailto:pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
> <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Charles Nadeau Ph.D.
> http://charlesnadeau.blogspot.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Charles Nadeau 2017-07-16 09:20:57 Re: Very poor read performance, query independent
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2017-07-15 17:58:32 Re: Very poor read performance, query independent