Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C4E1A4A83F for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 17:00:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from server13-scl.nuevasync.com ([64.13.157.153] helo=mail.nuevasync.com) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SUNv0-0003GW-Id for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 20:00:27 +0000 Received: from [69.145.82.250] (unknown [69.145.82.250]) by mail.nuevasync.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6812B2153 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 14:00:12 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4FB2B5C8.7030109@boreham.org> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:00:08 -0600 From: David Boreham User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SSD selection References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-U; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201205/99 X-Sequence-Number: 46923 On 5/15/2012 12:16 PM, Rosser Schwarz wrote: > As the other posters in this thread have said, your best bet is > probably the Intel 710 series drives, though I'd still expect some > 320-series drives in a RAID configuration to still be pretty > stupendously fast. One thing to mention is that the 710 are not faster than 320 series (unless in your definition of fast you count potential GC pauses of course). The 710's primary claim to fame is that it has endurance and GC characteristics designed for server and database use (constant load, heavy write load). So 320 drives will be just as fast, if not faster, but they will wear out much more quickly (possibly not a concern for the OP in his deployment) and may suffer from unwelcome GC pauses.