From: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Intel 710 SSD test
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:49:26 -0600
Message-ID: <4E886BE6.8060907@boreham.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B75582D7-A3C2-497B-86EB-430E49814C4F@mac.com>
References: <4E87CEDF.3000504@boreham.org>
<1317525762.87269.YahooMailNeo@web111315.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
<B75582D7-A3C2-497B-86EB-430E49814C4F@mac.com>
On 10/1/2011 10:00 PM, Gregory Gerard wrote:
> How does this same benchmark compare on similar (or same) hardware but
> with magnetic media?
I don't have that data at present :(
So far I've been comparing performance with our current production
machines, which are older.
Those machines use 'raptors with no BBU/WBC, so their tps performance is
very low (100 per second or so).
Since our application tends to be limited by the transaction commit
rate, the SSD-based machine
is clearly going to be at least an order of magnitude faster. But I
don't know its relative performance
vs. the traditional BBU/WBC controller + string of drives approach (we
rejected that as an option already
for power consumption and space reasons).
I could install a raptor drive in the new server and test that, but it
wouldn't have a BBU/WBC controller.
I guess I could enable the drive's write cache which might produce
comparable results to a controller's WBC.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: david_list@boreham.org
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Intel 710 SSD test
In-Reply-To: <4E886BE6.8060907@boreham.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
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