Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 70ce3831-fe97-fd63-35ec-a0f5b6e5f31b@catalyst.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent (Charles Nadeau <charles.nadeau@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Right, that is a bit of a show stopper for those SSD (the Intel needs SATA 6Gb/s and the Sammy's need PCIe 3.0 to perform to their rated specs). regards Mark On 16/07/17 04:12, Charles Nadeau wrote: > Mark, > > The server is a . It doesn't really work with SATA drives. And when > you find one that is compatible, it is only used at 3Gb/s with a > maximum of 50000 IOPS (a well know caracteristic of the HP P410i SAS > RAID controller). I am looking at getting a Kingston Digital HyperX > Predator that I could use in one of the PCIe 2.0 x4 slot. However I am > worried about the "thermal runaway", i.e. when the server can't get a > temperature reading from a PCIe card, it spins the fans at full speed > to protect the server against high temperature. The machine being next > to my desk I worry about the deafening noise it will create. > Thanks! > > Chales > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Mark Kirkwood > <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz <mailto:mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>> > wrote: > > Thinking about this a bit more - if somewhat more blazing > performance is needed, then this could be achieved via losing the > RAID card and spinning disks altogether and buying 1 of the NVME > or SATA solid state products: e.g > > - Samsung 960 Pro or Evo 2 TB (approx 1 or 2 GB/s seq scan speeds > and 200K IOPS) > > - Intel S3610 or similar 1.2 TB (500 MB/s seq scan and 30K IOPS) > > > The Samsung needs an M.2 port on the mobo (but most should have > 'em - and if not PCIe X4 adapter cards are quite cheap). The Intel > is a bit more expensive compared to the Samsung, and is slower but > has a longer lifetime. However for your workload the Sammy is > probably fine. > > regards > > Mark > > On 15/07/17 11:09, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > > Ah yes - that seems more sensible (but still slower than I > would expect for 5 disks RAID 0). > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list > (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > <mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance> > > > > > -- > Charles Nadeau Ph.D. > http://charlesnadeau.blogspot.com/
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: