Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 13-8-2010 1:40 Scott Carey wrote:
Agreed.  There is a HUGE gap between "ooh ssd's are fast, look!" and
engineering a solution that uses them properly with all their
strengths and faults.  And as 'gnuoytr' points out, there is a big
difference between an Intel SSD and say, this thing:
http://www.nimbusdata.com/products/s-class_overview.html

From the description it sounds as if its either FreeBSD or OpenSolaris with ZFS with some webinterface-layer. That's not a bad thing per se, but as the site suggests its 'only' $25k for the smallest (2.5TB?) device. That makes it very likely that it are "off the shelf" MLC flash drives. Given the design of the device and the pricing it probably are your average 2.5"-drives with 100, 200 or 400GB capacity (maybe OCZ vertex 2 pro, which do have such a capacitor?), similar to the Intel SSD you compared it to. And than we're basically back to square one, unless the devices have a capacitor or ZFS works better with SSD-drives to begin with (it will at least know silent data corruption did occur).

There are of course devices that are not built on top of normal disk form factor SSD-drives like the Ramsan devices or Sun's F5100.

Best regards,

Arjen

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance


[Postgresql General]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP Users]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux