MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dadb1945-062f-c565-26ee-d334898d7cf5@catalyst.net.nz>
References: 
 <CADFyZw7aGoD0AaStxdyHByR5Qta=M5wx0v=iptKLhPUp+EOKvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <dc5d2b63-0a1b-ff76-c88a-87c2c41bd5b8@a-kretschmer.de>
 <CADFyZw4UanW5TbFajWKWhN9XcW+8gtCXw+kssHo47Wpr1A=zJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR07MB28103FD558CB6628CECE07BEDAA90@DM5PR07MB2810.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CADFyZw6JrhsLR_eYOeCjjiQMzz5bepk6AfMRBu0hnaQg+vN-=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <a8fa0c8a-1269-338e-80a6-cb121574be7c@catalyst.net.nz>
 <CADFyZw5-WzdkACN39-ND9tvBwmvfdEhFaYL3Ds82a3Rwav-neA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fc07e0b4-0a24-bd29-e9f2-b75947cbf82b@catalyst.net.nz>
 <dadb1945-062f-c565-26ee-d334898d7cf5@catalyst.net.nz>
From: Charles Nadeau <charles.nadeau@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:50:53 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CADFyZw579_W96dD_beduHeCFomVg1Xe8P+Kpi6jq3Z8+GsYVjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Very poor read performance, query independent
To: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
Cc: "pgsql-performa." <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f40304353ac425653c0554bf3490"
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

--f40304353ac425653c0554bf3490
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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 <
mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> 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 (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>


-- 
Charles Nadeau Ph.D.
http://charlesnadeau.blogspot.com/

--f40304353ac425653c0554bf3490
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Mark,</div><div><br></div><div>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 surpri=
se, 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 benchma=
rks.</div><div>Knowing that SSDs based on SandForce-2281 controller are rec=
ognised by my server, I may buy a pair of bigger/newer ones to put my table=
s on.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div><br></div><div>Charles</di=
v></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, J=
ul 15, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Mark Kirkwood <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz" target=3D"_blank">mark.kirkwood@catalyst.=
net.nz</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thinking abo=
ut this a bit more - if somewhat more blazing performance is needed, then t=
his could be achieved via losing the RAID card and spinning disks altogethe=
r and buying 1 of the NVME or SATA solid state products: e.g<br>
<br>
- Samsung 960 Pro or Evo 2 TB (approx 1 or 2 GB/s seq scan speeds and 200K =
IOPS)<br>
<br>
- Intel S3610 or similar 1.2 TB (500 MB/s seq scan and 30K IOPS)<br>
<br>
<br>
The Samsung needs an M.2 port on the mobo (but most should have &#39;em - a=
nd if not PCIe X4 adapter cards are quite cheap). The Intel is a bit more e=
xpensive compared to the Samsung, and is slower but has a longer lifetime. =
However for your workload the Sammy is probably fine.<br>
<br>
regards<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
Mark</font></span><span class=3D"im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
On 15/07/17 11:09, Mark Kirkwood wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Ah yes - that seems more sensible (but still slower than I would expect for=
 5 disks RAID 0).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">
-- <br>
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (<a href=3D"mailto:pgsql-performanc=
e@postgresql.org" target=3D"_blank">pgsql-performance@postgresql.<wbr>org</=
a>)<br>
To make changes to your subscription:<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance" rel=3D"nor=
eferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.postgresql.org/mail<wbr>pref/pgsql-pe=
rformance</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature">Charles N=
adeau Ph.D.<br><a href=3D"http://charlesnadeau.blogspot.com/" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://charlesnadeau.blogspot.com/</a></div>
</div>

--f40304353ac425653c0554bf3490--