On 05/16/2012 01:01 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Although your assertion 100% supported by intel's marketing numbers,
there are some contradicting numbers out there that show the drives
offering pretty similar performance. For example, look here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4902/intel-ssd-710-200
¿Wizard Merlin?
>
> De: Merlin Moncure
>Para: David Boreham
>CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>Enviado: Miércoles 16 de Mayo de 2012 13:53
>Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] SSD selection
>
>On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM, David Boreham w
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> On 5/16/2012 11:01 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> Although your assertion 100% supported by intel's marketing numbers,
>> there are some contradicting numbers out there that show the drives
>> offering pretty similar performance. For examp
On 5/16/2012 11:01 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Although your assertion 100% supported by intel's marketing numbers,
there are some contradicting numbers out there that show the drives
offering pretty similar performance. For example, look here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4902/intel-ssd-710-200g
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:00 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 12:16 PM, Rosser Schwarz wrote:
>>
>> As the other posters in this thread have said, your best bet is
>> probably the Intel 710 series drives, though I'd still expect some
>> 320-series drives in a RAID configuration to still be
On 5/15/2012 12:16 PM, Rosser Schwarz wrote:
As the other posters in this thread have said, your best bet is
probably the Intel 710 series drives, though I'd still expect some
320-series drives in a RAID configuration to still be pretty
stupendously fast.
One thing to mention is that the 710 are
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Віталій Тимчишин wrote:
> We are using Areca controller with BBU. So as for me, question is: Can 520
> series be set up to handle fsyncs correctly?
No.
The cause for capacitors on SSD logic boards is that fsyncs aren't
flushed to NAND media, and hence persisted,
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:08 PM, David Boreham wrote:
>> We've reached to the point when we would like to try SSDs. We've got a
>> central DB currently 414 GB in size and increasing. Working set does not fit
>> into our 96GB RAM server anymore.
>> So, the main question is what to take. Here what
On 5/15/2012 9:21 AM, Віталій Тимчишин wrote:
We've reached to the point when we would like to try SSDs. We've got a
central DB currently 414 GB in size and increasing. Working set does
not fit into our 96GB RAM server anymore.
So, the main question is what to take. Here what we've got:
1) I
Hello, all.
We've reached to the point when we would like to try SSDs. We've got a
central DB currently 414 GB in size and increasing. Working set does not
fit into our 96GB RAM server anymore.
So, the main question is what to take. Here what we've got:
1) Intel 320. Good, but slower then current
10 matches
Mail list logo
