Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TeZIe-0007lb-05 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:43:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TeZIc-0004ld-NS for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:43:10 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TeZIb-0004lX-Ju for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:43:09 +0000 Received: from [2404:130:0:10::40:2] (helo=mail.catalyst.net.nz) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TeZIa-0002O5-0a for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:43:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.catalyst.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5924332D06; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 11:43:06 +1300 (NZDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at catalyst.net.nz Received: from mail.catalyst.net.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bertrand.catalyst.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0BreCwUUChp1; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 11:43:05 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (122-60-64-230.jetstream.xtra.co.nz [122.60.64.230]) (Authenticated sender: mark.kirkwood) by mail.catalyst.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BEB832CF7; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 11:43:05 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <50B93678.3090100@catalyst.net.nz> Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:43:04 +1300 From: Mark Kirkwood User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vitalii Tymchyshyn CC: =?UTF-8?B?TmllbHMgS3Jpc3RpYW4gU2NoasO4ZHQ=?= , Kevin Grittner , sthomas@optionshouse.com, "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" , Willem Leenen Subject: Re: Optimize update query References: <20121130012426.69300@gmx.com> <855F8817-6C9A-4EFB-BB80-752BF7B73B56@autouncle.com> <50B87A1F.9020502@catalyst.net.nz> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2404:130:0:10::40:2 (failed) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org Hmm - not strictly true as stated: 1 SSD will typically do 500MB/s sequential read/write. 1 HDD will be lucky to get a 1/3 that. We are looking at replacing 4 to 6 disk RAID10 arrays of HDD with a RAID1 pair of SSD, as they perform about the same for sequential work and vastly better at random. Plus they only use 2x 2.5" slots (or, ahem 2x PCIe sockets), so allow smaller form factor servers and save on power and cooling. Cheers Mark On 30/11/12 23:07, Vitalii Tymchyshyn wrote: > Oh, yes. I don't imagine DB server without RAID+BBU :) > When there is no BBU, SSD can be handy. > But you know, SSD is worse in linear read/write than HDD. > > Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn > > > 2012/11/30 Mark Kirkwood > > > Most modern SSD are much faster for fsync type operations than a > spinning disk - similar performance to spinning disk + writeback > raid controller + battery. > > However as you mention, they are great at random IO too, so Niels, > it might be worth putting your postgres logs *and* data on the SSDs > and retesting. > -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance