On 4/6/11 10:48 PM, "Greg Smith" wrote:
>Since they're bragging about it there, the safe bet is that the older R2
>unit had no such facility.
>
>I note that the Z-Drive R2 is basically some flash packed on top of an
>LSI 1068e controller, mapped as a RAID0 volume.
In Linux, you can expose it as
On 04/07/2011 12:27 AM, Jesper Krogh wrote:
On 2011-03-28 22:21, Greg Smith wrote:
Some may still find these two cheap for enterprise use, given the use
of MLC limits how much activity these drives can handle. But it's
great to have a new option for lower budget system that can tolerate
some
On 2011-03-28 22:21, Greg Smith wrote:
Some may still find these two cheap for enterprise use, given the use
of MLC limits how much activity these drives can handle. But it's
great to have a new option for lower budget system that can tolerate
some risk there.
Drifting of the topic slightly
On 4/6/2011 9:19 PM, gnuo...@rcn.com wrote:
SSDs have been around for quite some time. The first that I've found is Texas
Memory. Not quite 1977, but not flash either, although they've been doing so
for a couple of years.
Well, I built my first ram disk (which of course I thought I had
inven
6 -0600
>From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org (on behalf of David Boreham
>)
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SSDs that may not suck
>To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>
>Had to say a quick thanks to Greg and the others who have posted
>detailed test results on SSDs h
Had to say a quick thanks to Greg and the others who have posted
detailed test results on SSDs here.
For those of us watching for the inflection point where we can begin the
transition from mechanical to solid state storage, this data and
experience is invaluable. Thanks for sharing it.
A shor
Here's the new Intel 3rd generation 320 series drive:
$ sudo smartctl -i /dev/sdc
Device Model: INTEL SSDSA2CW120G3
Firmware Version: 4PC10302
User Capacity:120,034,123,776 bytes
ATA Version is: 8
ATA Standard is: ATA-8-ACS revision 4
Since I have to go chant at the unbelievers next w
On 04/06/2011 08:22 PM, Scott Carey wrote:
Simple power failure tests demonstrate that you lose data with these
drives unless you disable the cache. Disabling the cache roughly drops
write performance by a factor of 3 to 4 on G1 drives and significantly
hurts wear-leveling and longevity (I haven
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Scott Carey wrote:
> On 4/5/11 7:07 AM, "Merlin Moncure" wrote:
>>One thing about MLC flash drives (which the industry seems to be
>>moving towards) is that you have to factor drive lifespan into the
>>total system balance of costs. Data point: had an ocz vertex 2
On 4/5/11 7:07 AM, "Merlin Moncure" wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>> If you really don't need more than 120GB of storage, but do care about
>> random I/O speed, this is a pretty easy decision now--presuming the
>>drive
>> holds up to claims. As the claims are rea
-0700 (PDT)
>>From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org (on behalf of Andy
>>)
>>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SSDs that may not suck
>>To: Merlin Moncure ,Scott Carey
>>
>>Cc: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org"
>>,Greg Smith
>>
>>
On 4/6/11 2:11 PM, "Andy" wrote:
>
>--- On Wed, 4/6/11, Scott Carey wrote:
>
>
>> I could care less about the 'fast' sandforce drives.
>> They fail at a high
>> rate and the performance improvement is BECAUSE they are
>> using a large,
>> volatile write cache.
>
>The G1 and G2 Intel MLC also u
On 3/29/11 7:32 AM, "Jeff" wrote:
>
>On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Jeff wrote:
>
>> Now that all sounds awful and horrible until you get to overall
>> performance, especially with reads - you are looking at 20k random
>> reads per second with a few disks. Adding in writes does kick it
>> down
On 3/29/11 7:16 AM, "Jeff" wrote:
>
>The write degradation could probably be monitored looking at svctime
>from sar. We may be implementing that in the near future to detect
>when this creeps up again.
For the X25-M's, overcommit. Do a secure erase, then only partition and
use 85% or so of t
Not for user data, only controller data.
Original message
>Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
>From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org (on behalf of Andy
>)
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SSDs that may not suck
>To: Merlin Moncure ,Scott Carey
>Cc:
--- On Wed, 4/6/11, Scott Carey wrote:
> I could care less about the 'fast' sandforce drives.
> They fail at a high
> rate and the performance improvement is BECAUSE they are
> using a large,
> volatile write cache.
The G1 and G2 Intel MLC also use volatile write cache, just like most SandF
I have generation 1 and 2 Intel MLC drives in production (~150+). Some
have been around for 2 years.
None have died. None have hit the write cycle limit. We do ~ 75GB of
writes a day.
The data and writes on these are not transactional (if one dies, we have
copies). But the reliability has bee
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 03/28/2011 04:21 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>> Today is the launch of Intel's 3rd generation SSD line, the 320 series.
>> And they've finally produced a cheap consumer product that may be useful
>> for databases, too! They've put 6 small capac
On 03/28/2011 04:21 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
Today is the launch of Intel's 3rd generation SSD line, the 320
series. And they've finally produced a cheap consumer product that
may be useful for databases, too! They've put 6 small capacitors onto
the board and added logic to flush the write cache
On 2011-03-29 18:50, Jeff wrote:
we have some new drives that we are going to use initially, but
eventually it'll be a secure-erase'd one we replace it with (which
should perform identical to a new one)
What enclosure & controller are you using on the 24 disk beast?
LSI ELP and a HP D2
On 03/29/2011 06:34 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
While I appreciate the heads up about these new drives, your posting
suggests (though you formulated in a way that you do not actually say
it) that OCZ products do not have a long term reliability. No factual
data. If you have knowledge of sandforce ba
pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org (on behalf of "Strange, John W"
>)
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SSDs that may not suck
>To: Jeff
>Cc: Merlin Moncure ,Andy
>,"pgsql-performance@postgresql.org"
>,Greg Smith ,Brian
>Ristuccia
>
>This can be resolv
On Mar 29, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Jesper Krogh wrote:
Are you replacing the drives with new once, or just secure-erase and
back in?
What kind of numbers are you drawing out of smartmontools in usage
figures?
(Also seeing some write-stalls here, on 24 Raid50 volumes of x25m's,
and
have been p
On 2011-03-29 16:16, Jeff wrote:
halt for 0.5-2 seconds, then resume. The fix we're going to do is
replace each drive in order with the rebuild occuring between each.
Then we do a security erase to reset the drive back to completely
empty (including the "spare" blocks kept around for writes).
sql-performance@postgresql.org; Greg Smith; Brian
Ristuccia
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SSDs that may not suck
On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Jeff wrote:
> Now that all sounds awful and horrible until you get to overall
> performance, especially with reads - you are looking at 20k random
On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Jeff wrote:
Now that all sounds awful and horrible until you get to overall
performance, especially with reads - you are looking at 20k random
reads per second with a few disks. Adding in writes does kick it
down a noch, but you're still looking at 10k+ iops.
2011/3/29 Jeff :
>
> On Mar 29, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
>>
>> My own experience with MLC drives is that write cycle expectations are
>> more or less as advertised. They do go down (hard), and have to be
>> monitored. If you are writing a lot of data this can get pretty
>> expensi
On Mar 29, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
My own experience with MLC drives is that write cycle expectations are
more or less as advertised. They do go down (hard), and have to be
monitored. If you are writing a lot of data this can get pretty
expensive although the cost dynamics are
Hello Greg, list,
On 2011-03-28 22:21, Greg Smith wrote:
Today is the launch of Intel's 3rd generation SSD line, the 320
series. And they've finally produced a cheap consumer product that
may be useful for databases, too! They've put 6 small capacitors onto
the board and added logic to flush
new SandForce) running database workloads? The benchmarks I've
> seen so far are for desktop applications.
>
> Andy
>
> --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Greg Smith wrote:
>
>> From: Greg Smith
>> Subject: [PERFORM] Intel SSDs that may not suck
>> To: "pgsql-performa
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Jesper Krogh wrote:
> On 2011-03-29 06:13, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> My own experience with MLC drives is that write cycle expectations are
>> more or less as advertised. They do go down (hard), and have to be
>> monitored. If you are writing a lot of data this
On 2011-03-29 06:13, Merlin Moncure wrote:
My own experience with MLC drives is that write cycle expectations are
more or less as advertised. They do go down (hard), and have to be
monitored. If you are writing a lot of data this can get pretty
expensive although the cost dynamics are getting bet
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Andy wrote:
> This might be a bit too little too late though. As you mentioned there really
> isn't any real performance improvement for the Intel SSD. Meanwhile,
> SandForce (the controller that OCZ Vertex is based on) is releasing its next
> generation control
.
Is there any benchmark measuring the performance of these SSD's (the new Intel
vs. the new SandForce) running database workloads? The benchmarks I've seen so
far are for desktop applications.
Andy
--- On Mon, 3/28/11, Greg Smith wrote:
> From: Greg Smith
> Subject: [PERFORM
Today is the launch of Intel's 3rd generation SSD line, the 320 series.
And they've finally produced a cheap consumer product that may be useful
for databases, too! They've put 6 small capacitors onto the board and
added logic to flush the write cache if the power drops. The cache on
these w
35 matches
Mail list logo
