Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F3D6330B7 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:59:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35652-05 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:59:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from adonis.tweakers.net (adonis.tweakers.net [213.239.154.11]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D13632FCF for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:59:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (82-169-23-111.ip.telfort.nl [82.169.23.111]) by adonis.tweakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B7B620CBC for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:59:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C64DF41.40803@tweakers.net> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:59:29 +0200 From: Arjen van der Meijden User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD References: <4C617C80.9080509@2ndquadrant.com> <72E29316-5F4C-4A01-8924-5340DF2FAE65@richrelevance.com> <4C6378F7.9040000@2ndquadrant.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=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201008/149 X-Sequence-Number: 39992 On 13-8-2010 1:40 Scott Carey wrote: > Agreed. There is a HUGE gap between "ooh ssd's are fast, look!" and > engineering a solution that uses them properly with all their > strengths and faults. And as 'gnuoytr' points out, there is a big > difference between an Intel SSD and say, this thing: > http://www.nimbusdata.com/products/s-class_overview.html From the description it sounds as if its either FreeBSD or OpenSolaris with ZFS with some webinterface-layer. That's not a bad thing per se, but as the site suggests its 'only' $25k for the smallest (2.5TB?) device. That makes it very likely that it are "off the shelf" MLC flash drives. Given the design of the device and the pricing it probably are your average 2.5"-drives with 100, 200 or 400GB capacity (maybe OCZ vertex 2 pro, which do have such a capacitor?), similar to the Intel SSD you compared it to. And than we're basically back to square one, unless the devices have a capacitor or ZFS works better with SSD-drives to begin with (it will at least know silent data corruption did occur). There are of course devices that are not built on top of normal disk form factor SSD-drives like the Ramsan devices or Sun's F5100. Best regards, Arjen