On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2011-11-02 22:08, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Yeb Havinga<yebhavinga@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Intel latency graph at http://imgur.com/Hh3xI >>> Ocz latency graph at http://imgur.com/T09LG >> >> curious: what were the pgbench results in terms of tps? >> >> merlin > > Both comparable near 10K tps. Well, and this is just me, I'd probably stick with the 710, but that's based on my understanding of things on paper, not real world experience with that drive. The vertex 2 is definitely a more reliable performer, but it looks like the results in your graph are mostly skewed by a few outlying data points. If the 710 can has the write durability that intel is advertising, then ISTM that is one less thing to think about. My one experience with the vertex 2 pro was that it was certainly fast but burned out just shy of the 10k write cycle point after all the numbers were crunched. This is just too close for comfort on databases that are doing a lot of writing. Note that either drive is giving you the performance of somewhere between a 40 and 60 drive tray of 15k drives configured in a raid 10 (once you overflow the write cache on the raid controller(s)). It would take a pretty impressive workload indeed to become i/o bound with either one of these drives...high scale pgbench is fairly pathological. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
