Re: Recommendations for SSDs in production?
| От | John R Pierce |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Recommendations for SSDs in production? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4EB194CC.40404@hogranch.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Recommendations for SSDs in production? (Thomas Strunz <beginner_@hotmail.de>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
On 11/02/11 11:39 AM, Thomas Strunz wrote: > For database I assume random read and writes are by way the most > important thing and any recent ssd is orders of magnitude faster in > that are compared to HDD even the "slow" Intel drives. actually, SSD's have issues with committed small block (8K) random writes such as databases do a lot of. the SSD has a rather large block size that has to be written all at once, so what they tend to do is accumulate random writes in a buffer, then write them all at once to a contiguous block (remapping the logical LBA sector address to an actual block/offset address). as a test at work, I compared a 2 x 100GB SAS enterprise SSD RAID0 with a 20 x 146GB SAS 15k HD RAID10, both raids using a HP p410 hardware raid controller with 1Gb cache, and both using XFS. Both file systems are approximately the same in sustainable random writes from postgres, up around 12000 wr/sec during heavy sustained pgbench activity (scaling factor of 500, 48 clients, 24 threads, on a 12 core 24 thread dual xeon e5660 48gb server). The HD raid is faster at sustained large block writes from iozone (1.2GB/sec vs 800MB/sec for the SSD). of course, the HD raid10 is 1.3TB of data, while the SSD raid0 is 200GB of data. -- john r pierce N 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: