Are you using a hardware based raid controller with them? Den 11/12/2012 20.11 skrev "Evgeny Shishkin" <itparan...@gmail.com>:
> > 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/<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 >> >> >
