Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD
От | Arjen van der Meijden |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4C64DF41.40803@tweakers.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD (Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
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
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: