| From: | Michael March <mmarch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD |
| Date: | 2010-08-08 06:49:38 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=km+H+mZ=yyx0_HTFZ-yU2sh85D+p5cs+ZcUSF@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> SSD's actually vary quite a bit with typical postgres benchmark workloads.
>
You mean various SSDs from different vendors? Or are you saying the same SSD
model might vary in performance from drive to drive?
> Many of them also do not guarantee data that has been sync'd will not be
> lost if power fails (most hard drives with a sane OS and file system do).
>
What feature does an SSD need to have to insure that sync'd data is indeed
written to the SSD in the case of power loss?
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Michael March wrote:
>
> If anyone is interested I just completed a series of benchmarks of stock
> Postgresql running on a normal HDD vs a SSD.
>
> If you don't want to read the post, the summary is that SSDs are 5 to 7
> times faster than a 7200RPM HDD drive under a pgbench load.
>
>
> http://it-blog.5amsolutions.com/2010/08/performance-of-postgresql-ssd-vs.html
>
> Is this what everyone else is seeing?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-08-08 06:55:09 | Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD |
| Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2010-08-08 06:46:49 | Re: Advice configuring ServeRAID 8k for performance |