On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:23 PM, David Boreham <david_l...@boreham.org>wrote:
> > A few quick thoughts: > > 1. 320 would be the only SSD I'd trust from your short-list. It's the only > one with proper protection from unexpected power loss. > 2. Multiple RAID'ed SSDs sounds like (vast) overkill for your workload. A > single SSD should be sufficient (will get you several thousand TPS on > pgbench for your DB size). > 3. Consider not using the magnetic disks at all (saves on space, power and > the cost of the RAID controller for them). > 4. Consider using Intel 710 series rather than 320 (pay for them with the > money saved from #3 above). Those devices have much, much higher specified > endurance than the 320s and since your DB is quite small you only need to > buy one of them. > > > On 10/24/2011 8:09 AM, Amitabh Kant wrote: > >> Hello >> >> I need to choose between Intel 320 , Intel 510 and OCZ Vertex 3 SSD's for >> my database server. From recent reading in the list and other places, I have >> come to understand that OCZ Vertex 3 should not be used, Intel 510 uses a >> Marvel controller while Intel 320 had a nasty bug which has been rectified. >> So the list narrows down to only 510 and 320, unless I have understood the >> OCZ Vertex reviews incorrectly. >> >> The server would itself be built along these lines: Dual CPU Xeon 5620, 32 >> or 48 GB RAM, 2 SAS 10K disk in RAID 1 for OS, 2 SAS 10K disk in RAID 1 for >> pg_xlog and 4 SSD in RAID 10 for data directory (overkill??). OS would be >> FreeBSD 8.2 (I would be tuning the sysctl variables). PG version would be >> 9.1 with replication set to another machine (Dual CPU Xeon 54xx, 32 GB RAM, >> 6 15K SAS 146 GB: 4 in RAID 10 for data and 2 in RAID 1 for OS + pg_xlog). >> The second machine hosts my current db , and there is not much of an issue >> with the performance. We need better redundancy now(current was to take a >> dump/backup every 12 hours), so the new machine. >> >> My database itself is not very big, approx 40 GB as of now, and would not >> grow beyond 80 GB in the next year or two. There are some tables where >> insert & updates are fairly frequent. From what I could gather, we are not >> doing more than 300-400 tps at the moment, and the growth should not be very >> high in the short term. >> >> Hope someone can give some pointers to which SSD I should go for at the >> moment. >> >> >> Amitabh >> >> Sadly, 710 is not that easily available around here at the moment. Amitabh
