Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550D0632525 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:14:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91041-09 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:14:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.8]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D2C6328DA for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:14:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (static-71-179-240-8.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MCOfZ-1OlGtj1rQ9-008qNr; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:14:47 +0200 Message-ID: <4C4B1F84.5030306@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:14:44 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yeb Havinga CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD References: <4C4A9452.9070100@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C4A9452.9070100@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:swLW9VZ/qMeF4YZzynU4Ba17ISgwYtt1DZz5vZ9qFkp F2pkUOtVUwWMJuCbP6h1ChkRZvUk/2TKVYAuaNdQoatPRp1uDL Kn5HvQix16pk1c/0hzHCcVwWJS6ZYj7dUsShkx/yHcRPQgQgeh cMWnD/l0HTgDUlv2TQwKW56+L5AQM0ppHhN5CvrVn2EVTqJIV1 TnmkDAA5Jlf7unJOvJ1ZwGCRsd1R7t4RBcBqeYXOk8= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201007/356 X-Sequence-Number: 39745 Yeb Havinga wrote: > Probably like many other's I've wondered why no SSD manufacturer puts > a small BBU on a SSD drive. Triggered by Greg Smith's mail > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-02/msg00291.php > here, and also anandtech's review at > http://www.anandtech.com/show/2899/1 (see page 6 for pictures of the > capacitor) I ordered a SandForce drive and this week it finally arrived. Note that not all of the Sandforce drives include a capacitor; I hope you got one that does! I wasn't aware any of the SF drives with a capacitor on them were even shipping yet, all of the ones I'd seen were the chipset that doesn't include one still. Haven't checked in a few weeks though. > * How to test for power failure? I've had good results using one of the early programs used to investigate this class of problems: http://brad.livejournal.com/2116715.html?page=2 You really need a second "witness" server to do this sort of thing reliably, which that provides. > * What filesystem to use on the SSD? To minimize writes and maximize > chance for seeing errors I'd choose ext2 here. I don't consider there to be any reason to deploy any part of a PostgreSQL database on ext2. The potential for downtime if the fsck doesn't happen automatically far outweighs the minimal performance advantage you'll actually see in real applications. All of the benchmarks showing large gains for ext2 over ext3 I have seen been synthetic, not real database performance; the internal ones I've run using things like pgbench do not show a significant improvement. (Yes, I'm already working on finding time to publicly release those findings) Put it on ext3, toggle on noatime, and move on to testing. The overhead of the metadata writes is the least of the problems when doing write-heavy stuff on Linux. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us