Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F181337990 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:03:40 -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 76392-06 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:03:32 +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 82ADE1337B80 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:03:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LwBgI-1Pjgmp0cMI-0186Kz; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:03:25 +0200 Message-ID: <4DBB0B76.8090805@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:03:18 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Chobot CC: Mark Steben , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: FUSION-IO io cards References: <69D96B03-F991-4825-A8FF-0FEEDCC17461@silentmedia.com> In-Reply-To: <69D96B03-F991-4825-A8FF-0FEEDCC17461@silentmedia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:MEhj+MeDYgIZ6HHIbKytQbFvGlrr73vgJ/wlXmSqRZS Pr1Wx/rlEPnPMGmSJq5wxW0JMpWWFjOi3Ge7Nl2MlBQmsx/MM9 5BnWK5WwVBZYB3yIpBKos6IEW8D482NJpDs6PWZuuxvy34oSYa p9SjtZUkMkeggF7lVcrgV2cv7iJmfaUk8lysELnOHXEb7Q3yJE klO3CKeMqyQdZvnOEAehNhM51KEixr8WB2THHSnac8= 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: 201104/418 X-Sequence-Number: 43480 Ben Chobot wrote: > Also, while I would say they seem reliable (they have a supercap and > succeeded every power-pull test we did) we just recently we've had > some issues which /appear/ to be fio driver-related that effectively > brought our server down. Fusion thinks its our kernel parameters, but > we're unconvinced, given the length of time we've run with the same > kernel settings. I'm not yet ready to say these cards are unreliable, > but I'm no longer willing to say they're problem-free, either. Ben has written a nice summary of the broader experience of everyone I've talked to who has deployed Fusion IO. The race car anology is a good one. Fast, minimal concerns about data loss, but occasional quirky things that are frustrating to track down and eliminate. Not much transparency in terms of what it's doing under the hood, which makes long-term reliability a concern too. A particularly regular complaint is that there are situations where the card can requite a long consistency check time on system boot after a crash. Nothing lost, but a long (many minutes) delay before the server is functioning again is possible. The already mentioned TI RAMSAN at an ever higher price point is also a possibility. Another more recent direct competitor to FusionIO's products comes from Virident: http://www.virident.com/ They seem to be doing everything right to make a FusionIO competitor at the same basic price point. They've already released good MySQL performance numbers, and they tell me that PostgreSQL ones are done but just not published yet; going through validation still. The "Performance Relative to Capacity Used" graph at http://www.ssdperformanceblog.com/2010/12/write-performance-on-virident-tachion-card/ is one anyone deploying on FusionIO should also be aware of. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books