Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63ACEB5DBD6 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 10:49:35 -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 14723-06 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 13:49:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0-rc2 Received: from mail.nuevasync.com (server13-scl.nuevasync.com [64.13.157.153]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED4D9B5D801 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 10:49:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [69.145.82.250]) by mail.nuevasync.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9EC2B1949 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 07:49:25 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4E886BE6.8060907@boreham.org> Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:49:26 -0600 From: David Boreham User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Suggestions for Intel 710 SSD test References: <4E87CEDF.3000504@boreham.org> <1317525762.87269.YahooMailNeo@web111315.mail.gq1.yahoo.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=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201110/6 X-Sequence-Number: 45228 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.