Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC9DB5D944 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:44:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37407-08 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:44:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com (mail-qw0-f46.google.com [209.85.216.46]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A099BB5D91F for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:44:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: by qwk3 with SMTP id 3so902499qwk.19 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:44:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tTwm5AbWtFAWp4db5ZEC61itLow55GTglc+P9tcoYxU=; b=uZ5+O0qBot58Cg4rtsxXAuVS+P66SlzCXK7UJ4C1Wg7cf+BeqIdx9pmeWZj97LgMBO YNr0NpTx9B+pWo2+CgeMvBYl3QnUl2jPOYXd3HTjZKs7QLeD0DZrTQ/j71ROT38ByI19 HIWNQWENjepMZMERc9PmHXNKhyTbIQkXgJI90= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=k0bJrJPIdST1SqMx+lloGDpj3XHal6xKYIfFb2I6dNi+nnzMlDrKRTAqn0GmFKmTBG R8euEBb5ErPUwtEM2ohVAh7D/oSkJIvCG9eGAqkI9q0ddC9e4iheBzYTjNWyn/GG6rgJ 4qaii+kYBzf8+RTGBrMFkKfNiSViXaQqKgKy8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.178.69 with SMTP id bl5mr792994qab.132.1308264251205; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.28.85 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:44:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DFA7FB8.80705@2ndQuadrant.com> References: <4DFA4EB7.1020701@2ndQuadrant.com> <4DFA7FB8.80705@2ndQuadrant.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:44:11 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Performance advice for a new low(er)-power server From: Merlin Moncure To: Greg Smith Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.898 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RFC_ABUSE_POST=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201106/149 X-Sequence-Number: 44082 On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > On 06/16/2011 03:04 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> I don't necessarily agree. the drives are SLC and have the potential >> to have a much longer lifespan than any MLC drive, although this is >> going to depend a lot on the raid controller if write caching is >> disabled. =A0Also, reading the post that got all this started >> >> (http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/03/02/ssd-xfs-lvm-fsync-write-= cache-barrier-and-lost-transactions/), >> the OP was able to configure them to run durably with 1200 write iops. >> > > We've also seen > http://petereisentraut.blogspot.com/2009/07/solid-state-drive-benchmarks-= and-write.html > where Peter was only able to get 441 seeks/second on the bonnie++ mixed > read/write test that way. =A0And no one has measured the longevity of the > drive when it's running in this mode. =A0A large portion of the lifespan > advantage MLC would normally have over SLC goes away if it can't cache > writes anymore. =A0Worst-case, if the drive is always hit with 8K writes = and > the erase size is 128KB, you might get only 1/16 of the specified lifetim= e > running it cacheless. > > I just can't recommend that people consider running one of these in a mod= e > it was never intended to. =A0The fact that the consumer drives from this > generation still lose data even with the write cache turned off should ma= ke > you ask what other, more difficult to trigger failure modes are still > hanging around the enterprise drives, too. =A0Everyone I've seen suffer > through problems with these gave up on them before even trying really > in-depth reliability tests, so I don't consider that territory even very > well explored. I've always been more than little suspicious about Peter's results -- using lvm and luks, and the filesystem wasn't specified or the write barriers setting. Also they are much slower than any other results I've seen, and no numbers are given using a more standard setup. Other people are showing 1200 write iops vs 441 mostly read iops. Not that I think they aren't correct, but there simply has to be an explanation of why his results are so much slower than all others on the 'net...I think 1200 write iops is a realistic expectation. One the cache/lifespan issue, you might be correct -- it's going to depend on the raid controller. The drive has a 10x longer lifespan and there is not going to be a 1:1 correspondence between sync requests and actual syncs to the drive. But the drive is denied the ability to do it's own reordering so unless the raid controller is really optimized for flash longevity (doubtful), you probably do have to give back a lot of the savings you get from being SLC (possibly more). So it's complex -- but I think the whole issue becomes moot soon because non consumer flash drives from here on out are going to have capacitors in them (the 720 ramsdale will immediately knock out the x25-e). So the prudent course of action is to wait, or to just go with the current crop capacitor based drives and deal with the lifespan issues. merlin