Re: [GENERAL] Synchronous replication + Fusion-io = waste of money OR significant performance boost? (compared to normal SATA-based SSD-disks)?
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Joel Jacobson j...@trustly.com wrote: My company is in the process of migrating to a new pair of servers, running 9.1. The database performance monetary transactions, we require synchronous_commit on for all transactions. Fusion-io is being considered, but will it give any significant performance gain compared to normal SATA-based SSD-disks, due to the fact we must replicate synchronously? To make it more complicated, what about SLC vs MLC (for synchronous replication)? Assume optimal conditions, both servers have less than a meter between each other, with the best possible network link between them providing the lowest latency possible, maxed out RAM, maxed out CPUs, etc. I've already asked this question to one of the core members, but the answer was basically you will have to test, I was therefore hoping someone in the community already had some test results to avoid wasting money. Thank you for any advice! flash, just like hard drives, has some odd physical characteristics that impose some performance constraints, especially when writing, and double especially when MLC flash is used. modern flash drives employ non volatile buffers to work around these constraints that work pretty well *most* of the time. since MLC is much cheaper improvements in flash controller technology are basically pushing SLC out of the market except in high end applications. if you need zero latency storage all the time and are willing to spend the extra bucks, then pci-e based SLC is definitely worth looking at (you'll have another product to evaluate soon when the intel 720 ramsdale hits the market). a decent MLC drive might work for you though, i'd suggest testing there first and upgrading to the expensive proprietary stuff if and only if you really need it. my experience with flash and postgres is that even with low-mid range drives like the intel 320 it's quite a challenge to make postgres be i/o bound. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Synchronous replication + Fusion-io = waste of money OR significant performance boost? (compared to normal SATA-based SSD-disks)?
I've also looked at the Fusion-IO products. They are not standard flash drives. They don't appear as SATA devices. They contains an FPGA that maps the flash directly to the PCI bus. The kernel-mode drivers blits data to/from them via DMA, not a SATA or SAS drive (that would limit transfer rates to 6Gb/s). But, I don't have any in-hand to test with yet... :( But the kool-aide looks tasty :) On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Joel Jacobson j...@trustly.com wrote: My company is in the process of migrating to a new pair of servers, running 9.1. The database performance monetary transactions, we require synchronous_commit on for all transactions. Fusion-io is being considered, but will it give any significant performance gain compared to normal SATA-based SSD-disks, due to the fact we must replicate synchronously? To make it more complicated, what about SLC vs MLC (for synchronous replication)? Assume optimal conditions, both servers have less than a meter between each other, with the best possible network link between them providing the lowest latency possible, maxed out RAM, maxed out CPUs, etc. I've already asked this question to one of the core members, but the answer was basically you will have to test, I was therefore hoping someone in the community already had some test results to avoid wasting money. Thank you for any advice! flash, just like hard drives, has some odd physical characteristics that impose some performance constraints, especially when writing, and double especially when MLC flash is used. modern flash drives employ non volatile buffers to work around these constraints that work pretty well *most* of the time. since MLC is much cheaper improvements in flash controller technology are basically pushing SLC out of the market except in high end applications. if you need zero latency storage all the time and are willing to spend the extra bucks, then pci-e based SLC is definitely worth looking at (you'll have another product to evaluate soon when the intel 720 ramsdale hits the market). a decent MLC drive might work for you though, i'd suggest testing there first and upgrading to the expensive proprietary stuff if and only if you really need it. my experience with flash and postgres is that even with low-mid range drives like the intel 320 it's quite a challenge to make postgres be i/o bound. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Synchronous replication + Fusion-io = waste of money OR significant performance boost? (compared to normal SATA-based SSD-disks)?
Hi, On 9 March 2012 02:23, dennis jenkins dennis.jenkins...@gmail.com wrote: I've also looked at the Fusion-IO products. They are not standard flash drives. They don't appear as SATA devices. They contains an FPGA that maps the flash directly to the PCI bus. The kernel-mode drivers blits data to/from them via DMA, not a SATA or SAS drive (that would limit transfer rates to 6Gb/s). But, I don't have any in-hand to test with yet... :( But the kool-aide looks tasty :) I think they are good investment but we wasn't able to use them because: - iodrive was small (1.2TB only) and not very scalable in long term -- not enough PCIE slots - iodrive duo/octal needs more power and cooling than we had You can workaround both by upgrading server (two of them, HA) but you just delay the situation when you can't insert new card (no slots or power available). Performance wise, we were able to reduce query time - from few seconds to instant (500ms and better) - any query exceeding 300sec (apache timeout) finished under minute -- Ondrej Ivanic (ondrej.iva...@gmail.com) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Synchronous replication + Fusion-io = waste of money OR significant performance boost? (compared to normal SATA-based SSD-disks)?
My company is in the process of migrating to a new pair of servers, running 9.1. The database performance monetary transactions, we require synchronous_commit on for all transactions. Fusion-io is being considered, but will it give any significant performance gain compared to normal SATA-based SSD-disks, due to the fact we must replicate synchronously? To make it more complicated, what about SLC vs MLC (for synchronous replication)? Assume optimal conditions, both servers have less than a meter between each other, with the best possible network link between them providing the lowest latency possible, maxed out RAM, maxed out CPUs, etc. I've already asked this question to one of the core members, but the answer was basically you will have to test, I was therefore hoping someone in the community already had some test results to avoid wasting money. Thank you for any advice! Best regards, Joel Jacobson Trustly Group AB (former Glue Finance AB) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
