Anandtech took the trouble of doing that:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4902/intel-ssd-710-200gb-review
I think the main advantage of the 710 compared to the 320 is its much
heavier over-provisioning and better quality MLC-chips. Both the 320 and
710 use the same controller and offer similar
password-show
On 10/1/2011 10:00 PM, Gregory Gerard wrote:
How does this same benchmark compare on similar (or same) hardware but
with magnetic media?
I don't have that data at present :(
So far I've been comparing performance with our current production
machines, which are older.
Those machines use
On 10/1/2011 9:22 PM, Andy wrote:
Do you have an Intel 320? I'd love to see tests comparing 710 to 320
and see if it's worth the price premium.
Good question. I don't have a 320 drive today, but will probably get one
for testing soon.
However, my conclusion based on the Intel spec
On 10/2/2011 2:33 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
Given the fact that you can get two 320's for the price of one 710,
its probably always a bit difficult to actually make the choice
(unless you want a fixed amount of disks and the best endurance
possible for that).
One thing I'd add to
If I may ask what were your top three candidates before choosing the intel?
Also why not just plan a graceful switch to a replicated server? At some point
you have to detect the drive is about to go (or it just goes without warning).
Presumably that point will be in a while and be coordinated
On 10/2/2011 6:26 PM, Gregory Gerard wrote:
If I may ask what were your top three candidates before choosing the intel?
All the other options considered viable were using traditional
rotational disks.
I personally don't have any confidence in the other SSD vendors today,
except perhaps for
On 10/01/2011 07:39 PM, David Boreham wrote:
I've already tried bonnie++, sysbench and a simple WAL emulation
test program I wrote more than 10 years ago. The drive tests at
around 160Mbyte/s on bulk data and 4k tps for commit rate writing
small blocks.
That sounds about the same performance
On 10/2/2011 10:35 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
That sounds about the same performance as the 320 drive I tested
earlier this year then. You might try duplicating some of the
benchmarks I ran on that:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4d9d1fc3.4020...@2ndquadrant.com
Thanks. Actually I
On 10/2/2011 10:49 PM, David Boreham wrote:
There are some OS differences between the old and new servers : old is
running CentOS 5.7 while the new is running 6.0.
Old server has atime enabled while new has relatime mount option
specified. Both are running PG 9.1.1 from the yum repo.
Also
Which repo did you get them from?
On Oct 2, 2011, at 10:24 PM, David Boreham wrote:
On 10/2/2011 10:49 PM, David Boreham wrote:
There are some OS differences between the old and new servers : old is
running CentOS 5.7 while the new is running 6.0.
Old server has atime enabled while new
On 10/2/2011 11:55 PM, Gregory Gerard wrote:
Which repo did you get them from?
http://yum.postgresql.org/9.1/redhat/rhel-$releasever-$basearch
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
12 matches
Mail list logo
