Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B391C11162 for ; Mon, 28 May 2012 09:14:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SYyq2-00063Z-VQ for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 12:14:22 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.6] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LmRp1-1Rz6BZ0lRz-00a5dK; Mon, 28 May 2012 14:14:06 +0200 Message-ID: <4FC36C0D.5090200@2ndQuadrant.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 08:14:05 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111120 Icedove/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Merlin Moncure 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-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Q0+FBBABhGd0fxVT41PiJsi5JLjdULcW4GFdlQAiqVf ZkA7ZwbccEbV2TNKTdhkzJNJwC9rGUfgwAneKVRiMvLC//Q7FF GojQuU3/AVjBQb/znfDJBUcxlkvs+Rt/RmM7yMgnOmlt3yX9tC 2guSddxAT0ye/GrUNaxZhiA4c0JH/PyCd5pt+8hvm1E81XhMYC 0wLiS/o7BEhz2m5+4NlHvK/TVzQnUtqH9FK9UHkiqL49i2tCMp fZiZ/FZESNqhGPPpKeQL4E1T3WWHKJ1WNbfdmE8wDm3T4rZh5V eUHPbznbZlVR1KMighiQ6tenVMANtr/Ca6jUbBy3LIQ5ximDxT 2+S/b5cFWpDpcvI8WX3c= X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201205/159 X-Sequence-Number: 46983 On 05/16/2012 01:01 PM, 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. I wrote something talking about all the ways the two drives differ at http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/intel_ssds_lifetime_and_the_32/ What the 710 numbers are saying is that you can't push lots of tiny writes out at a high IOPS without busting the drive's lifetime estimates. You can either get a really high IOPS of small writes (320) or a smaller IOPS of writes that are done more efficiently in terms of flash longevity (710). You can't get both at the same time. The 710 may ultimately throttle its speed back to meet lifetime specifications as the drive fills, it's really hard to benchmark the differences between the two series. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com