Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Mark Kirkwood
Тема Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent
Дата
Msg-id 70ce3831-fe97-fd63-35ec-a0f5b6e5f31b@catalyst.net.nz
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent  (Charles Nadeau <charles.nadeau@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-performance
Right, that is a bit of a show stopper for those SSD (the Intel needs
SATA 6Gb/s and the Sammy's need PCIe 3.0 to perform to their rated specs).

regards

Mark


On 16/07/17 04:12, Charles Nadeau wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The server is a . It doesn't really work with SATA drives. And when
> you find one that is compatible, it is only used at 3Gb/s with a
> maximum of 50000 IOPS (a well know caracteristic of the HP P410i SAS
> RAID controller). I am looking at getting a Kingston Digital HyperX
> Predator that I could use in one of the PCIe 2.0 x4 slot. However I am
> worried about the "thermal runaway", i.e. when the server can't get a
> temperature reading from a PCIe card, it spins the fans at full speed
> to protect the server against high temperature. The machine being next
> to my desk I worry about the deafening noise it will create.
> Thanks!
>
> Chales
>
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Mark Kirkwood
> <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz <mailto: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
>     <mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>)
>     To make changes to your subscription:
>     http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>     <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Charles Nadeau Ph.D.
> http://charlesnadeau.blogspot.com/



В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Scott Marlowe
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent
Следующее
От: Charles Nadeau
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent