From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Choosing between Intel 320, Intel 510 or OCZ Vertex 3 SSD for db server |
Date: | 2011-10-24 21:31:31 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0zZxnznLuP+fytLHT6Wu257w7ysAyuALR0BVZ4JxYWROg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:53 AM, David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org> wrote:
>
> A few quick thoughts:
>
> 1. 320 would be the only SSD I'd trust from your short-list. It's the only
> one with proper protection from unexpected power loss.
yeah.
> 2. Multiple RAID'ed SSDs sounds like (vast) overkill for your workload. A
> single SSD should be sufficient (will get you several thousand TPS on
> pgbench for your DB size).
Also, raid controllers interfere with TRIM.
> 3. Consider not using the magnetic disks at all (saves on space, power and
> the cost of the RAID controller for them).
Agree. If one SSD did not deliver the tps, I'd consider buying more
and optimizing with jbod/tablespaces -- really doubt that's necessary
however. Maybe a single large slow magnetic disk is a good idea for
retaining backups though.
> 4. Consider using Intel 710 series rather than 320 (pay for them with the
> money saved from #3 above). Those devices have much, much higher specified
> endurance than the 320s and since your DB is quite small you only need to
> buy one of them.
710 is good idea if and only if you are worried about write durability
(in which case it's a great idea).
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2011-10-24 22:47:01 | Re: Choosing between Intel 320, Intel 510 or OCZ Vertex 3 SSD for db server |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-24 19:31:43 | Re: Tsearch2 - bad performance with concatenated ts-vectors |