This looks great when you want in-memory (something like unlogged tables) and you also want replication. (meaning, I don't know of an alternative to get replication with unlogged than to just get faster drives + logged tables?)
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Graeme B. Bell <grb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Images/data here
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Five-Intel-SSD-750s-Tested-Two-Million-IOPS-and-10-GBsec-Achievement-Unlocked
On 04 Jun 2015, at 13:07, Graeme Bell <grb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I previously mentioned on the list that nvme drives are going to be a very big thing this year for DB performance.
>
> This video shows what happens if you get an 'enthusiast'-class motherboard and 5 of the 400GB intel 750 drives.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hE8Vg1qPSw
>
> Total transfer speed: 10.3 GB/second.
> Total IOPS: 2 million (!)
>
> + nice power loss protection (Intel)
> + lower latency too - about 20ms vs 100ms for SATA3 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7843/testing-sata-express-with-asus/4)
> + substantially lower CPU use per I/O (http://www.anandtech.com/show/8104/intel-ssd-dc-p3700-review-the-pcie-ssd-transition-begins-with-nvme/5)
>
> You're probably wondering 'how much' though?
> $400 per drive! Peanuts.
>
> Assuming for the moment you're working in RAID0 or with tablespaces, and just want raw speed:
> $2400 total for 2 TB of storage, including a good quality motherboard, with 2 million battery backed IOPS and 10GB/second bulk transfers.
>
> These drives are going to utterly wreck the profit margins on high-end DB hardware.
>
> Graeme Bell
>
> p.s. No, I don't have shares in Intel, but maybe I should...
>
>
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
