Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=vPV4mfDFKUmYNK7avf8owS6RfKBt43_ypVBDk@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD (Michael March <mmarch@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Michael March <mmarch@gmail.com> wrote: > >> SSD's actually vary quite a bit with typical postgres benchmark workloads. > > You mean various SSDs from different vendors? Or are you saying the same SSD > model might vary in performance from drive to drive? > >> >> Many of them also do not guarantee data that has been sync'd will not be >> lost if power fails (most hard drives with a sane OS and file system do). > > What feature does an SSD need to have to insure that sync'd data is indeed > written to the SSD in the case of power loss? A big freaking capacitor and the ability to notice power's been cut and start writing out the cache. There are a few that have it that are coming out right about now. There was a post about one such drive a few days ago, it was like 50G and $450 or so, so not cheap, but not that bad compared to the $7000 drive bays with 16 15k6 drives I've used in to the past to get good performance (3 to 4k tps) -- To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: