Re: SSD selection

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: SSD selection
Date: 2012-05-16 18:53:28
Message-ID: CAHyXU0zf0HXJ--jdGOOva8NnNfGr9q9H6n8MJPjQU5fY=+KCKg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM, David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org> wrote:
> On 5/16/2012 11:01 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> Although your assertion 100% supported by intel's marketing numbers,
>> there are some contradicting numbers out there that show the drives
>> offering pretty similar performance.  For example, look here:
>> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4902/intel-ssd-710-200gb-review/4  and
>> you can see that 4k aligned writes are giving quite similar results
>> (14k iops) even though the 710 is only rated for 2700 iops while the
>> 320 is rated for 21000 IOPS.  Other benchmarks also show similar
>> results.
>
> Actually I said the same thing you're saying : that the two series will
> deliver similar performance.
>
> The spec numbers however would be for worst case conditions (in the case of
> the 710).
> I'm not convinced that those tests were exercising the worst case part of
> the envelope.

Yeah -- you might be right -- their numbers are based on iometer which
looks like it runs lower than other tests (see here:
http://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_710_series_review_200gb) I
still find it interesting the 320 is spec'd so much higher though. I
guess I spoke to soon -- it looks it has to do with the life extending
attributes of the drive. Benchmarks are all over the place though.

merlin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alejandro Carrillo 2012-05-16 19:01:02 Re: SSD selection
Previous Message David Boreham 2012-05-16 17:45:39 Re: SSD selection