Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Greg Smith
Yeb Havinga wrote: Writes/s start low but quickly converge to a number in the range of 1200 to 1800. The writes diskchecker does are 16kB writes. Making this 4kB writes does not increase writes/s. 32kB seems a little less, 64kB is about two third of initial writes/s and 128kB is half. Let's t

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Yeb Havinga
Yeb Havinga wrote: Yeb Havinga wrote: diskchecker: running 37 sec, 4.47% coverage of 500 MB (1468 writes; 39/s) Total errors: 0 :-) OTOH, I now notice the 39 write /s .. If that means ~ 39 tps... bummer. When playing with it a bit more, I couldn't get the test_file to be created in the right

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Greg Smith
Joshua D. Drake wrote: That is quite the toy. I can get 4 SATA-II with RAID Controller, with battery backed cache, for the same price or less :P True, but if you look at tests like http://www.anandtech.com/show/2899/12 it suggests there's probably at least a 6:1 performance speedup for wor

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 16:21 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > Greg Smith wrote: > > Note that not all of the Sandforce drives include a capacitor; I hope > > you got one that does! I wasn't aware any of the SF drives with a > > capacitor on them were even shipping yet, all of the ones I'd seen > > wer

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Greg Smith
Greg Smith wrote: Note that not all of the Sandforce drives include a capacitor; I hope you got one that does! I wasn't aware any of the SF drives with a capacitor on them were even shipping yet, all of the ones I'd seen were the chipset that doesn't include one still. Haven't checked in a f

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Yeb Havinga
Yeb Havinga wrote: diskchecker: running 37 sec, 4.47% coverage of 500 MB (1468 writes; 39/s) Total errors: 0 :-) OTOH, I now notice the 39 write /s .. If that means ~ 39 tps... bummer. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subsc

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Yeb Havinga
Greg Smith wrote: Note that not all of the Sandforce drives include a capacitor; I hope you got one that does! I wasn't aware any of the SF drives with a capacitor on them were even shipping yet, all of the ones I'd seen were the chipset that doesn't include one still. Haven't checked in a f

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote: > Hello list, > > Probably like many other's I've wondered why no SSD manufacturer puts a > small BBU on a SSD drive. Triggered by Greg Smith's mail > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-02/msg00291.php here, > and also anandtec

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Greg Smith
Yeb Havinga wrote: Probably like many other's I've wondered why no SSD manufacturer puts a small BBU on a SSD drive. Triggered by Greg Smith's mail http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-02/msg00291.php here, and also anandtech's review at http://www.anandtech.com/show/2899/1 (s

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Ben Chobot
On Jul 24, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote: > The problem in this scenario is that even when the SSD would show not data > loss and the rotating disk would for a few times, a dozen tests without > failure isn't actually proof that the drive can write it's complete buffer to > disk after po

Re: [PERFORM] Using more tha one index per table

2010-07-24 Thread Craig James
On 7/24/10 5:57 AM, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote: Craig James schrieb: The problem is that Google ranks pages based on inbound links, so older versions of Postgres *always* come up before the latest version in page ranking. Since 2009 you can deal with this by defining the canonical-version. (htt

Re: [PERFORM] Using more tha one index per table

2010-07-24 Thread Torsten Zühlsdorff
Craig James schrieb: The problem is that Google ranks pages based on inbound links, so older versions of Postgres *always* come up before the latest version in page ranking. Since 2009 you can deal with this by defining the canonical-version. (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread david
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, David Boreham wrote: Do you guys have any more ideas to properly 'feel this disk at its teeth' ? While an 'end-to-end' test using PG is fine, I think it would be easier to determine if the drive is behaving correctly by using a simple test program that emulates the stora

Re: [PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread David Boreham
Do you guys have any more ideas to properly 'feel this disk at its teeth' ? While an 'end-to-end' test using PG is fine, I think it would be easier to determine if the drive is behaving correctly by using a simple test program that emulates the storage semantics the WAL expects. Have it wri

[PERFORM] Testing Sandforce SSD

2010-07-24 Thread Yeb Havinga
Hello list, Probably like many other's I've wondered why no SSD manufacturer puts a small BBU on a SSD drive. Triggered by Greg Smith's mail http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-02/msg00291.php here, and also anandtech's review at http://www.anandtech.com/show/2899/1 (see pag