On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 5/20/13 6:32 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
When it comes to databases, particularly in the open source postgres
world, hard drives are completely obsolete. SSD are a couple of
orders of magnitude faster and this (while
On 5/22/13 9:30 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
That's most certainly *not* the only gain to be had: random read rates
of large databases (a very important metric for data analysis) can
easily hit 20k tps. So I'll stand by the figure.
They can easily hit that number. Or they can do this:
Device:
Hi, I have a database where one of my tables (Adverts) are requested a LOT.
It's a relatively narrow table with 12 columns, but the size is growing pretty
rapidly. The table is used i relation to another one called (Car), and in the
form of cars has many adverts. I have indexed the foreign key
PostgreSQL 9.1.6 on linux
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Very slow inner join query Unacceptable latency.
From: Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com
Date: Tue, May 21, 2013 2:59 pm
To: Freddie Burgess fburg...@radiantblue.com
Cc: psql performance list
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 5/22/13 9:30 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
That's most certainly *not* the only gain to be had: random read rates
of large databases (a very important metric for data analysis) can
easily hit 20k tps. So I'll stand by the
On 5/22/13 11:05 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
unfortunately, I don't have a s3700 to
test with, but based on everything i've seen it looks like it's a
mostly solved problem. (for example, see here:
http://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_dc_s3700_series_enterprise_ssd_review).
Tests that drive
On 05/22/2013 08:30 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I'm not claiming to work with extremely high transaction rate systems
but then again neither are most of the people reading this list.
Disk drives are obsolete for database installations.
Well, you may not be able to make that claim, but I can.
On 5/22/2013 8:18 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
They can easily hit that number. Or they can do this:
Device: r/sw/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm
%util
sdd 2702.80 19.40 19.67 0.1614.91 273.68 71.74 0.37 100.00
sdd 2707.60 13.00 19.53 0.1014.78
On 5/22/13 12:56 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
Well, you may not be able to make that claim, but I can. While we don't
use Intel SSDs, our first-gen FusinoIO cards can deliver about 20k
PostgreSQL TPS of our real-world data right off the device before
caching effects start boosting the numbers.
I've
On 05/22/2013 12:31 PM, David Boreham wrote:
Device: r/sw/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
sdd 2702.80 19.40 19.67 0.1614.91 273.68 71.74 0.37 100.00
sdd 2707.60 13.00 19.53 0.1014.78 276.61 90.34 0.37 100.00
That's an Intel 710 being
On 05/22/2013 11:06 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
I have some moderately fast SSD based transactional systems that are
still using traditional drives with battery-backed cache for the
sequential writes of the WAL volume, where the data volume is on Intel
710 disks. WAL writes really burn through
On 5/22/13 3:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Greg, can you elaborate on the SSD + Xlog issue? What type of burn
through are we talking about?
You're burning through flash cells at a multiple of the total WAL write
volume. The system I gave iostat snapshots from upthread (with the
Intel 710
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 5/22/13 3:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Greg, can you elaborate on the SSD + Xlog issue? What type of burn
through are we talking about?
You're burning through flash cells at a multiple of the total WAL write
On 05/22/2013 02:51 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
s3700 is rated for 10 drive writes/day for 5 years. so, for 200gb
drive, that's 200gb * 10/day * 365 days * 5, that's 3.65 million
gigabytes or ~ 3.5 petabytes.
Nice. And on that note:
On 5/22/13 3:51 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
s3700 is rated for 10 drive writes/day for 5 years. so, for 200gb drive, that's
200gb * 10/day * 365 days * 5, that's 3.65 million gigabytes or ~ 3.5 petabytes.
Yes, they've improved on the 1.5PB that the 710 drives topped out at.
For that particular
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
You bet, and I haven't recommended anyone buy a 710 since the announcement.
However, hit the street is still an issue. No one has been able to keep
DC S3700 drives in stock very well yet. It took me three tries through
On May 22, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
And there are some other products with interesting price/performance/capacity
combinations that are also sensitive to wearout. Seagate's hybrid drives
have turned interesting now that they cache writes safely for example.
There's no cheaper
On 05/22/2013 01:57 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
You bet, and I haven't recommended anyone buy a 710 since the announcement.
However, hit the street is still an issue. No one has been able to keep
DC S3700 drives in stock
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I am curious how the 710 or S3700 stacks up against the new M500 from
Crucial? I know Intel is kind of the goto for these things but the m500 is
power off protected and rated at: Endurance: 72TB total bytes written
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:41 AM, fburg...@radiantblue.com wrote:
PostgreSQL 9.1.6 on linux
From the numbers in your attached plan, it seems like it should be doing a
nested loop from the 580 rows (it thinks) that match in SARS_ACTS_RUN
against the index on sars_run_id to pull out the 3297
On 05/22/2013 04:37 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I am curious how the 710 or S3700 stacks up against the new M500 from
Crucial? I know Intel is kind of the goto for these things but the m500 is
power off protected and
On 23/05/13 13:01, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 05/22/2013 04:37 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake
j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I am curious how the 710 or S3700 stacks up against the new M500 from
Crucial? I know Intel is kind of the goto for these
On 5/22/13 6:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am curious how the 710 or S3700 stacks up against the new M500 from
Crucial? I know Intel is kind of the goto for these things but the m500
is power off protected and rated at: Endurance: 72TB total bytes written
(TBW), equal to 40GB per day for 5
On 5/22/13 4:57 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Oh, the major vendors will still keep their
rip-off going on a little longer selling their storage trays, raid
controllers, entry/mid level SANS, SAS HBAs etc at huge markup to
customers who don't need them (some will still need them, but the bar
On 23/05/13 13:32, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
On 23/05/13 13:01, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 05/22/2013 04:37 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake
j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I am curious how the 710 or S3700 stacks up against the new M500 from
Crucial? I
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On 05/22/2013 04:37 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
I am curious how the 710 or S3700 stacks up against the new M500 from
Crucial? I know Intel
On 5/22/13 10:04 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Make that quite a few capacitors (top right corner):
http://regmedia.co.uk/2013/05/07/m500_4.jpg
There are some more shots and descriptions of the internals in the
excellent review at
http://techreport.com/review/24666/crucial-m500-ssd-reviewed
On 23/05/13 14:22, Greg Smith wrote:
On 5/22/13 10:04 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Make that quite a few capacitors (top right corner):
http://regmedia.co.uk/2013/05/07/m500_4.jpg
There are some more shots and descriptions of the internals in the
excellent review at
On 23/05/13 14:26, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
On 23/05/13 14:22, Greg Smith wrote:
On 5/22/13 10:04 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Make that quite a few capacitors (top right corner):
http://regmedia.co.uk/2013/05/07/m500_4.jpg
There are some more shots and descriptions of the internals in the
On 05/22/2013 07:17 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
According the the data sheet it is power safe.
http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=732650
http://www.micron.com/products/solid-state-storage/client-ssd/m500-ssd
Wow, that seems like a pretty good deal then assuming it
30 matches
Mail list logo
