From: behrangs <behrang.sa@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Samsung 32GB SATA SSD tested
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <19282698.post@talk.nabble.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1216771475.23796.14.camel@squeak.gghcwest.com>
References: <1216771475.23796.14.camel@squeak.gghcwest.com>
Jeff,
Some off topic questions:
Is it possible to boot the OS from the ioDrive? If so, is the difference in
boot up time noticeable?
Also, how does ioDrive impact compilation time for a moderately large code
base? What about application startup times?
Cheers,
Behrang
Jeffrey Baker wrote:
>
> For background, please read the thread "Fusion-io ioDrive", archived at
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2008-07/msg00010.php
>
> To recap, I tested an ioDrive versus a 6-disk RAID with pgbench on an
> ordinary PC. I now also have a 32GB Samsung SATA SSD, and I have tested
> it in the same machine with the same software and configuration. I
> tested it connected to the NVIDIA CK804 SATA controller on the
> motherboard, and as a pass-through disk on the Areca RAID controller,
> with write-back caching enabled.
>
> Service Time Percentile, millis
> R/W TPS R-O TPS 50th 80th 90th 95th
> RAID 182 673 18 32 42 64
> Fusion 971 4792 8 9 10 11
> SSD+NV 442 4399 12 18 36 43
> SSD+Areca 252 5937 12 15 17 21
>
> As you can see, there are tradeoffs. The motherboard's ports are
> substantially faster on the TPC-B type of workload. This little, cheap
> SSD achieves almost half the performance of the ioDrive (i.e. similar
> performance to a 50-disk SAS array.) The RAID controller does a better
> job on the read-only workload, surpassing the ioDrive by 20%.
>
> Strangely the RAID controller behaves badly on the TPC-B workload. It
> is faster than disk, but not by a lot, and it's much slower than the
> other flash configurations. The read/write benchmark did not vary when
> changing the number of clients between 1 and 8. I suspect this is some
> kind of problem with Areca's kernel driver or firmware.
>
> On the bright side, the Samsung+Areca configuration offers excellent
> service time distribution, comparable to that achieved by the ioDrive.
> Using the motherboard's SATA ports gave service times comparable to the
> disk RAID.
>
> The performance is respectable for a $400 device. You get about half
> the tps and half the capacity of the ioDrive, but for one fifth the
> price and in the much more convenient SATA form factor.
>
> Your faithful investigator,
> jwb
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Samsung-32GB-SATA-SSD-tested-tp18601508p19282698.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: behrang.sa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Samsung 32GB SATA SSD tested
In-Reply-To: <19282698.post@talk.nabble.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox