On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:47 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 p
> 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 p
On Aug 5, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Pierre C wrote:
>>
>>> 1) Should I switch to RAID 10 for performance? I see things like "RAID 5
>>> is bad for a DB" and "RAID 5 is slow with <= 6 drives" but I see little on
>>> RAID 6.
>>
>> As others said, R
SSD's actually vary quite a bit with typical postgres benchmark workloads.
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).
On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Michael March wrote:
If anyone is intereste
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/perform
> Yes, I know that. I am very familiar with how RAID6 works. RAID5
> with the hot spare already rebuilt / built in is a good enough answer
> for management where big words like parity might scare some PHBs.
>
>> In terms of storage cost, it IS like paying for RAID5 + a hot spare,
>> but the prote
