Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and SSDs?

It's a Crucial CT250MX200SSD1 and a Samsung MZ7LM480HCHP-00003.

Regards,

Kaixi

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz
> wrote:

> On 06/07/16 07:17, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We had a similar situation and the best performance was with 64MB
>> background_bytes and 512 MB dirty_bytes.
>>
>> Tigran.
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2016 16:51, Kaixi Luo <kaixiluo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here are my server specs:
>>
>> RAID1 - 2x480GB Samsung SSD with power loss protection (will be used
>> to
>> store the PostgreSQL database)
>> RAID1 - 2x240GB Crucial SSD with power loss protection. (will be
>> used to
>> store PostgreSQL transactions logs)
>>
>>
> Can you tell the exact model numbers for the Samsung and Crucial SSD's? It
> typically matters! E.g I have some Crucial M550 that have capacitors and
> (originally) claimed to be power off safe, but with testing have been shown
> to be not really power off safe at all. I'd be dubious about Samsungs too.
>
> The Intel Datacenter range (S3700 and similar) are known to have power off
> safety that does work.
>
> regards
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>