On 19.2.2014 16:13, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Tomas Vondra <tv@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 18.2.2014 02:23, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't have PERC H710 raid controller, but I think he would like to >>> know raid striping/chunk size or read/write cache ratio in >>> writeback-cache setting is the best. I'd like to know it, too:) >> >> We do have dozens of H710 controllers, but not with SSDs. I've been >> unable to find reliable answers how it handles TRIM, and how that works >> with wearout reporting (using SMART). > > AFAIK (I haven't looked for a few months), they don't support TRIM. > The only hardware RAID vendor that has even basic TRIM support Intel > and that's no accident; I have a theory that enterprise storage > vendors are deliberately holding back SSD: SSD (at least, the newer, > better ones) destroy the business model for "enterprise storage > equipment" in a large percentage of applications. A 2u server with, > say, 10 s3700 drives gives *far* superior performance to most SANs > that cost under 100k$. For about 1/10th of the price. Yeah, maybe. I'm generally a bit skeptic when it comes to conspiration theories like this, but for ~1 year we all know that it might easily happen to be true. So maybe ... Nevertheless, I'd guess this is another case of the "Nobody ever got fired for buying X", where X is a storage product based on spinning drives, proven to be reliable, with known operational statistics and pretty good understanding of how it works. While "Y" is a new thing based on SSDs, that got rather bad reputation initially because of a hype and premature usage of consumer-grade products for unsuitable stuff. Also, each vendor of Y uses different tricks, which makes application of experiences across vendors (or even various generations of drives of the same vendor) very difficult. Factor in how conservative DBAs happen to be, and I think it might be this particular feedback loop, forcing the vendors not to push this. > If you have a server that is i/o constrained as opposed to storage > constrained (AKA: a database) hard drives make zero economic sense. > If your vendor is jerking you around by charging large multiples of > market rates for storage and/or disallowing drives that actually > perform well in their storage gear, choose a new vendor. And consider > using software raid. Yeah, exactly. Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
