public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Charles Nadeau <[email protected]>
To: Mark Kirkwood <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-performa. <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Very poor read performance, query independent
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:50:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CADFyZw579_W96dD_beduHeCFomVg1Xe8P+Kpi6jq3Z8+GsYVjw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CADFyZw7aGoD0AaStxdyHByR5Qta=M5wx0v=iptKLhPUp+EOKvA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CADFyZw4UanW5TbFajWKWhN9XcW+8gtCXw+kssHo47Wpr1A=zJw@mail.gmail.com>
<DM5PR07MB28103FD558CB6628CECE07BEDAA90@DM5PR07MB2810.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
<CADFyZw6JrhsLR_eYOeCjjiQMzz5bepk6AfMRBu0hnaQg+vN-=A@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CADFyZw5-WzdkACN39-ND9tvBwmvfdEhFaYL3Ds82a3Rwav-neA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
Mark,
I received yesterday a second server having 16 drives bays. Just for a
quick trial, I used 2 old 60GB SSD (a Kingston V300 and a ADATA SP900) to
build a RAID0. To my surprise, my very pecky RAID controller (HP P410i)
recognised them without a fuss (although as SATAII drives at 3Gb/s. A quick
fio benchmark gives me 22000 random 4k read IOPS, more than my 5 146GB 10k
SAS disks in RAID0). I moved my most frequently used index to this array
and will try to do some benchmarks.
Knowing that SSDs based on SandForce-2281 controller are recognised by my
server, I may buy a pair of bigger/newer ones to put my tables on.
Thanks!
Charles
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Mark Kirkwood <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Thinking about this a bit more - if somewhat more blazing performance is
> needed, then this could be achieved via losing the RAID card and spinning
> disks altogether and buying 1 of the NVME or SATA solid state products: e.g
>
> - Samsung 960 Pro or Evo 2 TB (approx 1 or 2 GB/s seq scan speeds and 200K
> IOPS)
>
> - Intel S3610 or similar 1.2 TB (500 MB/s seq scan and 30K IOPS)
>
>
> The Samsung needs an M.2 port on the mobo (but most should have 'em - and
> if not PCIe X4 adapter cards are quite cheap). The Intel is a bit more
> expensive compared to the Samsung, and is slower but has a longer lifetime.
> However for your workload the Sammy is probably fine.
>
> regards
>
> Mark
>
> On 15/07/17 11:09, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
>> Ah yes - that seems more sensible (but still slower than I would expect
>> for 5 disks RAID 0).
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected])
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
--
Charles Nadeau Ph.D.
http://charlesnadeau.blogspot.com/
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Very poor read performance, query independent
In-Reply-To: <CADFyZw579_W96dD_beduHeCFomVg1Xe8P+Kpi6jq3Z8+GsYVjw@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox