It's a Crucial CT250MX200SSD1 and a Samsung MZ7LM480HCHP-00003. Regards,
Kaixi On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz > wrote: > On 06/07/16 07:17, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We had a similar situation and the best performance was with 64MB >> background_bytes and 512 MB dirty_bytes. >> >> Tigran. >> >> On Jul 5, 2016 16:51, Kaixi Luo <kaixi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Here are my server specs: >> >> RAID1 - 2x480GB Samsung SSD with power loss protection (will be used >> to >> store the PostgreSQL database) >> RAID1 - 2x240GB Crucial SSD with power loss protection. (will be >> used to >> store PostgreSQL transactions logs) >> >> > Can you tell the exact model numbers for the Samsung and Crucial SSD's? It > typically matters! E.g I have some Crucial M550 that have capacitors and > (originally) claimed to be power off safe, but with testing have been shown > to be not really power off safe at all. I'd be dubious about Samsungs too. > > The Intel Datacenter range (S3700 and similar) are known to have power off > safety that does work. > > regards > > Mark > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >
