On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:32 PM, David Rees <drees76@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Bret Stern >> <bret_stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Any opinions/comments on using SSD drives with postgresql? >> >> Here's a single S3700 smoking an array of 16 15k drives (poster didn't >> realize that; was to focused on synthetic numbers): >> http://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/45224/postgres-write-performance-on-intel-s3700-ssd > > I just ran a quick test earlier this week on an old Dell 2970 (2 > Opteron 2387, 16GB RAM) comparing a 6-disk RAID10 with 10k 147GB SAS > disks to a 2-disk RAID1 with 480GB Intel S3500 SSDs and found the SSDs > are about 4-6x faster using pgbench and a scaling factor of 1100. Some > sort of MegaRAID controller according to lspci and has BBU. TPS > numbers below are approximate. > > RAID10 disk array: > 8 clients: 350 tps > 16 clients: 530 tps > 32 clients: 800 tps > > RAID1 SSD array: > 8 clients: 2100 tps > 16 clients: 2500 tps > 32 clients: 3100 tps > > So yeah, even the slower, cheaper S3500 SSDs are way fast. If your > write workload isn't too high, the S3500 can work well. We'll see how > the SMART drive lifetime numbers do once we get into production, but > right now we estimate they should last at least 5 years and from what > we've seen it seems that SSDs seem to wear much better than expected. > If not, we'll pony up and go for the S3700 or perhaps move the xlog > back on to spinning disks. On a machine with 16 cores with HT (appears as 32 cores) and 8 of the 3700 series Intel SSDs in a RAID-10 under an LSI MegaRAID with BBU, I was able to get 6300 to 7500 tps on a decent sized pgbench db (-s1000). -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
