On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Niels Kristian Schjødt <nielskrist...@autouncle.com> wrote:
> And what is your experience so far? > Increased tps by a factor of 10, database no longer a limiting factor of application. And it is cheaper than brand rotating drives. > Den 11/12/2012 18.16 skrev "Evgeny Shishkin" <itparan...@gmail.com>: > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Niels Kristian Schjødt > <nielskrist...@autouncle.com> wrote: > > > > > Den 11/12/2012 kl. 14.29 skrev Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com>: > > > >> On 12/11/2012 06:04 PM, Niels Kristian Schjødt wrote: > >>> > >>> Maybe I should mention, that I never see more than max 5Gb out of my > >>> total 32Gb being in use on the server… Can I somehow utilize more of it? > >> For an update-mostly workload it probably won't do you tons of good so > >> long as all your indexes fit in RAM. You're clearly severely > >> bottlenecked on disk I/O not RAM. > >>> The SSD's I use a are 240Gb each which will grow too small within a > >>> few months - so - how does moving the whole data dir onto four of > >>> those in a RAID5 array sound? > >> > >> Not RAID 5! > >> > >> Use a RAID10 of four or six SSDs. > >> > >> -- > >> Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > >> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services > >> > > Hehe got it - did you have a look at the SSD's I am considering building it > > of? > > http://ark.intel.com/products/66250/Intel-SSD-520-Series-240GB-2_5in-SATA-6Gbs-25nm-MLC > > Are they suitable do you think? > > > > I am not Craig, but i use them in production in raid10 array now. > > > > > > > -- > > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > > To make changes to your subscription: > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >