On 06/04/15 02:58, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 06/03/2015 03:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Cache is not free memory - it's there for a purpose and usually
plays a significant role in perf
Note also - these disks are close to the performance of memory from a few
generations ago (e.g. >10GB/second bulk transfers)
They also have bigger/faster versions of the drives, 1.2TB each.
I suspect that 5 of those would feel somewhat similar to having 6TB of memory
in your db server ... :-)
This looks great when you want in-memory (something like unlogged tables)
and you also want replication. (meaning, I don't know of an alternative to
get replication with unlogged than to just get faster drives + logged
tables?)
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Graeme B. Bell
wrote:
>
> Images/dat
Images/data here
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Five-Intel-SSD-750s-Tested-Two-Million-IOPS-and-10-GBsec-Achievement-Unlocked
On 04 Jun 2015, at 13:07, Graeme Bell wrote:
> I previously mentioned on the list that nvme drives are going to be a very
> big thing this year for DB performa
I previously mentioned on the list that nvme drives are going to be a very big
thing this year for DB performance.
This video shows what happens if you get an 'enthusiast'-class motherboard and
5 of the 400GB intel 750 drives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hE8Vg1qPSw
Total transfer speed: 10
