On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Andy wrote:
> According to the specs for database storage:
> "Random 4KB arites: Up to 600 IOPS"
> Is that for real? 600 IOPS is *atrociously terrible* for an SSD. Not much
> faster than mechanical disks.
Keep in mind that the 600 IOPS is over the entire disk. p
On 08/24/2011 01:42 PM, David Boreham wrote:
On 8/24/2011 11:41 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
I've measured the performance of this drive from a couple of
directions now, and it always comes out the same. For PostgreSQL,
reading or writing 8K blocks, I'm seeing completely random workloads
hit a wo
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Andy wrote:
> According to the specs for database storage:
> "Random 4KB arites: Up to 600 IOPS"
> Is that for real? 600 IOPS is *atrociously terrible* for an SSD. Not much
> faster than mechanical disks.
> Has anyone done any performance benchmark of 320 used as
Original message
>Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:25:27 -0600
>From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org (on behalf of David Boreham
>)
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel 320 SSD info
>To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>
> On 8/24/2011 11:23 AM, Andy wrote:
>
On 8/24/2011 11:41 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
I've measured the performance of this drive from a couple of
directions now, and it always comes out the same. For PostgreSQL,
reading or writing 8K blocks, I'm seeing completely random workloads
hit a worst-case of 20MB/s; that's just over 2500 IOPS
On 08/24/2011 01:23 PM, Andy wrote:
According to the specs for database storage:
"Random 4KB arites: Up to 600 IOPS"
Is that for real? 600 IOPS is *atrociously terrible* for an SSD. Not
much faster than mechanical disks.
Has anyone done any performance benchmark of 320 used as a DB storage?
On 8/24/2011 11:23 AM, Andy wrote:
According to the specs for database storage:
"Random 4KB arites: Up to 600 IOPS"
Is that for real? 600 IOPS is *atrociously terrible* for an SSD. Not
much faster than mechanical disks.
The underlying (Flash block) write rate really is terrible (and slower
On 8/24/2011 11:17 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
hm, I think they need to reconcile those numbers with the ones on this
page:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/solid-state-drives/solid-state-drives-320-series.html
600 write ips vs 3.7k/23k.
They do provide an explanation (and what I find
that slow?
From: David Boreham
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:58 PM
Subject: [PERFORM] Intel 320 SSD info
Apologies if this has already been posted here (I hadn't seen it before today,
and
can't find a previous post).
This
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David Boreham wrote:
>
> Apologies if this has already been posted here (I hadn't seen it before
> today, and
> can't find a previous post).
> This will be of interest to anyone looking at using SSDs for database
> storage :
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/e
Apologies if this has already been posted here (I hadn't seen it before
today, and
can't find a previous post).
This will be of interest to anyone looking at using SSDs for database
storage :
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/solid-state-drives/ssd-320-enterprise-server-storage-applicati
11 matches
Mail list logo
