Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6C7632477 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:28:24 -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 43318-01 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:28:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ew0-f46.google.com (mail-ew0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3AA362E706 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:28:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ewy23 with SMTP id 23so771191ewy.19 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:28:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MDV5e9MeAkVrJkjlVDxXpAcHFrcz/hMKXK4NxWatFkw=; b=Kg+y//p7Q7NJ4/4PMnyQJCNRpBUtU3u4TIwdJPc0mKWh2TWCXgjXZhnTpVSV1/40YM cSvVVBIu9aG5mD+YqMp5ZMlZWgq/ATQVkhaUU6T1xEemuzjQ0chudfLUFIi3NSO3AasC gBjZF9LzeLKbDH0llEDq0V5fIn5EA2LkC0lzM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=rD+XJNOYWJGdaY+i5do55YtgpaSJhsScTWP/1rzUZTRPb9Z5XBJic7ZovKB2HUZevA l25E3lHL1xm92nYKk/7ObSrlC20Amq5SOO18WMwxLt8woa9rWJ0lPeFa9/g3kHRGKscY Qj7BM3b4MqA6ewH2zPJI+6KMgugLo5S6GslSE= Received: by 10.213.12.196 with SMTP id y4mr3404411eby.61.1280140092584; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (5357DA75.cable.casema.nl [83.87.218.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x54sm5456482eeh.5.2010.07.26.03.28.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C4D6396.5020707@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:29:42 +0200 From: Yeb Havinga User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Wakeling CC: Greg Smith , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD References: <4C4A9452.9070100@gmail.com> <4C4B1F84.5030306@2ndquadrant.com> <4C4C83DF.3010703@gmail.com> <4C4C8CCC.7080406@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.499 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_05=-0.5, URIBL_RED=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201007/378 X-Sequence-Number: 39767 Matthew Wakeling wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, Yeb Havinga wrote: >> Graph of TPS at http://tinypic.com/r/b96aup/3 and latency at >> http://tinypic.com/r/x5e846/3 > > Does your latency graph really have milliseconds as the y axis? Yes > If so, this device is really slow - some requests have a latency of > more than a second! I try to just give the facts. Please remember that particular graphs are from a read/write pgbench run on a bigger than RAM database that ran for some time (so with checkpoints), on a *single* $435 50GB drive without BBU raid controller. Also, this is a picture with a few million points: the ones above 200ms are perhaps a hundred and hence make up a very small fraction. So far I'm pretty impressed with this drive. Lets be fair to OCZ and the SandForce guys and do not shoot from the hip things like "really slow", without that being backed by a graphed pgbench run together with it's cost, so we can compare numbers with numbers. regards, Yeb Havinga