Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3B41F9BE73 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:46:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from server13-scl.nuevasync.com ([64.13.157.153] helo=mail.nuevasync.com) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SUiIV-0002Hn-2j for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 16 May 2012 17:46:03 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (122.sub-166-250-167.myvzw.com [166.250.167.122]) by mail.nuevasync.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6337F2B2153 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:45:46 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4FB3E7C3.7070209@boreham.org> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 11:45:39 -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: <4FB2B5C8.7030109@boreham.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201205/104 X-Sequence-Number: 46928 On 5/16/2012 11:01 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > Although your assertion 100% supported by intel's marketing numbers, > there are some contradicting numbers out there that show the drives > offering pretty similar performance. For example, look here: > http://www.anandtech.com/show/4902/intel-ssd-710-200gb-review/4 and > you can see that 4k aligned writes are giving quite similar results > (14k iops) even though the 710 is only rated for 2700 iops while the > 320 is rated for 21000 IOPS. Other benchmarks also show similar > results. Actually I said the same thing you're saying : that the two series will deliver similar performance. The spec numbers however would be for worst case conditions (in the case of the 710). I'm not convinced that those tests were exercising the worst case part of the envelope.