From: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SSD selection
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:08:06 -0600
Message-ID: <4FB28D76.8080402@boreham.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABWW-d032_BBZCi-z5=1H-4SrytKEtE10=TAu3uOTa-BnHUU6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABWW-d032_BBZCi-z5=1H-4SrytKEtE10=TAu3uOTa-BnHUU6Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/15/2012 9:21 AM, Віталій Тимчишин wrote:
>
>
> We've reached to the point when we would like to try SSDs. We've got a
> central DB currently 414 GB in size and increasing. Working set does
> not fit into our 96GB RAM server anymore.
> So, the main question is what to take. Here what we've got:
> 1) Intel 320. Good, but slower then current generation sandforce drives
> 2) Intel 330. Looks like cheap 520 without capacitor
> 3) Intel 520. faster then 320 No capacitor.
> 4) OCZ Vertex 3 Pro - No available. Even on OCZ site
> 5) OCZ Deneva - can't find in my country :)
>
Is the 710 series too costly for your deployment ?
I ask because that would be the obvious choice for a database (much
better write endurance than any of the drives above, and less likely to
suffer from firmware bugs or unpleasant GC behavior).
We've been running them in production for a few months with zero
problems and great performance.
The price on the 710's tends to vary on whether they're in stock :
NewEgg is currently showing $1100 for the 300G drive, but no stock.
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: SSD selection
In-Reply-To: <4FB28D76.8080402@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