pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedSamsung 32GB SATA SSD tested
5+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Samsung 32GB SATA SSD tested
@ 2008-07-23 00:04 Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey W. Baker @ 2008-07-23 00:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung 32GB SATA SSD tested
@ 2008-07-23 00:32 Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
parent: Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Scott Marlowe @ 2008-07-23 00:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Are you still using the 2.6.18 kernel for testing, or have you
upgraded to something like 2.6.22. I've heard many good things about
the areca driver in that kernel version.
This sounds like an interesting development I'll have to keep track
of. In a year or two I might be replacing 16 disk arrays with SSD
drives...
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung 32GB SATA SSD tested
@ 2008-07-23 19:57 Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com>
parent: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey Baker @ 2008-07-23 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Are you still using the 2.6.18 kernel for testing, or have you
> upgraded to something like 2.6.22. I've heard many good things about
> the areca driver in that kernel version.
These tests are being run with the CentOS 5 kernel, which is 2.6.18.
The ioDrive driver is available for that kernel, and I want to keep
the software constant to get comparable results.
I put the Samsung SSD in my laptop, which is a Core 2 Duo @ 2.2GHz
with ICH9 SATA port and kernel 2.6.24, and it scored about 525 on R/W
pgbench.
> This sounds like an interesting development I'll have to keep track
> of. In a year or two I might be replacing 16 disk arrays with SSD
> drives...
I agree, it's definitely an exciting development. I have yet to
determine whether the SSDs have good properties for production
operations, but I'm learning.
-jwb
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung 32GB SATA SSD tested
@ 2008-07-23 20:10 Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
parent: Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Scott Marlowe @ 2008-07-23 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Are you still using the 2.6.18 kernel for testing, or have you
>> upgraded to something like 2.6.22. I've heard many good things about
>> the areca driver in that kernel version.
>
> These tests are being run with the CentOS 5 kernel, which is 2.6.18.
> The ioDrive driver is available for that kernel, and I want to keep
> the software constant to get comparable results.
>
> I put the Samsung SSD in my laptop, which is a Core 2 Duo @ 2.2GHz
> with ICH9 SATA port and kernel 2.6.24, and it scored about 525 on R/W
> pgbench.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Samsung 32GB SATA SSD tested
@ 2008-09-03 04:20 behrangs <behrang.sa@gmail.com>
parent: Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: behrangs @ 2008-09-03 04:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
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.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-09-03 04:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-07-23 00:04 Samsung 32GB SATA SSD tested Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com>
2008-07-23 00:32 ` Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
2008-07-23 19:57 ` Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker@gmail.com>
2008-07-23 20:10 ` Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
2008-09-03 04:20 ` behrangs <behrang.sa@gmail.com>
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