On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:40:55 +1000, Toby Corkindale wrote:
>>> While it is important to let the SSD know about space that can be
>>> reclaimed, I gather the operation does not perform well. I *think*
>>> current advice is to leave 'discard' off the mount options, and instead
>>> run a nightly cron
On 21/05/13 00:16, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Toby Corkindale
wrote:
On 11/05/13 02:25, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Evan D. Hoffman
wrote:
Not sure of your space requirements, but I'd think a RAID 10 of 8x or
more
Samsung 840 Pro 256/
On 20/05/13 15:12, David Boreham wrote:
On 5/19/2013 7:19 PM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
On 13/05/13 11:23, David Boreham wrote:
btw we deploy on CentOS6. The only things we change from the default
are:
1. add "relatime,discard" options to the mount (check whether the most
recent CentOS6 does this
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Toby Corkindale
wrote:
> On 11/05/13 02:25, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Evan D. Hoffman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not sure of your space requirements, but I'd think a RAID 10 of 8x or
>>> more
>>> Samsung 840 Pro 256/512 GB would be the b
On 5/19/2013 7:19 PM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
On 13/05/13 11:23, David Boreham wrote:
btw we deploy on CentOS6. The only things we change from the default
are:
1. add "relatime,discard" options to the mount (check whether the most
recent CentOS6 does this itself -- it didn't back when we first
On 13/05/13 11:23, David Boreham wrote:
btw we deploy on CentOS6. The only things we change from the default are:
1. add "relatime,discard" options to the mount (check whether the most
recent CentOS6 does this itself -- it didn't back when we first deployed
on 6.0).
While it is important to l
On 11/05/13 02:25, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Evan D. Hoffman
wrote:
Not sure of your space requirements, but I'd think a RAID 10 of 8x or more
Samsung 840 Pro 256/512 GB would be the best value. Using a simple mirror
won't get you the reliability that you want sin
So a week after asking our HP dealer, they've finally replied to say that they
can't tell us what manufacturer and model the SSDs are because "HP treat this
information as company confidential". Not particularly helpful.
They have at least confirmed that the drives have "surprise power loss
pro
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:20 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 6:13 PM, David Boreham wrote:
>>
>>
>> Not quite. More like : a) I don't know where to buy SLC drives in 2013
>> (all the drives for example for sale on newegg.com are MLC) and b) today's
>> MLC drives are quite good enough for m
On 5/12/2013 6:41 PM, David Boreham wrote:
Agreed. I don't go near the likes of Simple, HGST, F-IO, SMART, et al.
For me this is SAS and SCSI re-born -- an excuse to charge very high
prices for a product not significantly different from a much cheaper
mainstream alternative, by exploiting unsop
On 5/12/2013 7:20 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
the real SLC drives end up OEM branded in large SAN systems, such as
sold by Netapp, EMC, and are made by companies like STEC that have
zero presence in the 'whitebox' resale markets like Newegg.
Agreed. I don't go near the likes of Simple, HGST,
btw we deploy on CentOS6. The only things we change from the default are:
1. add "relatime,discard" options to the mount (check whether the most
recent CentOS6 does this itself -- it didn't back when we first deployed
on 6.0).
2. Disable swap. This isn't strictly an SSD tweak, since we have en
On 5/12/2013 6:13 PM, David Boreham wrote:
Not quite. More like : a) I don't know where to buy SLC drives in 2013
(all the drives for example for sale on newegg.com are MLC) and b)
today's MLC drives are quite good enough for me (and I'd venture to
say any database-related purpose).
Newegg
On 5/11/2013 3:10 AM, Matt Brock wrote:
On 10 May 2013, at 16:25, David Boreham wrote:
I've never looked at SLC drives in the past few years and don't know anyone who
uses them these days.
Because SLCs are still more expensive? Because MLCs are now almost as good as
SLCs for performance/end
On 05/10/2013 11:38 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
PostgreSQL configuration changes:
synchronous_commit = off
effective_io_concurrency = 4
checkpoint_segments = 1024
checkpoint_timeout = 10min
checkpoint_warning = 8min
shared_buffers = 32gb
temp_buffers = 128mb
work_mem = 512mb
maintenance_work_mem
On 10 May 2013, at 16:25, David Boreham wrote:
> I've never looked at SLC drives in the past few years and don't know anyone
> who uses them these days.
Because SLCs are still more expensive? Because MLCs are now almost as good as
SLCs for performance/endurance?
I should point out that this d
On May 10, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure that these numbers will end up being anywhere near what works
>> for you, but these are my notes from tuning a 4xMLC SSD RAID-10. I haven't
>> proven that this is optimal, but it was way better than the defaults. We
>
On May 10, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> PostgreSQL configuration changes:
>> synchronous_commit = off
>>
>
> that's good info, but it should be noted that synchronous_commit
> trades a risk of some data loss (but not nearly as much risk as
> volatile storage) for a big increa
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Steven Schlansker wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Matt Brock wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> We're intending to deploy PostgreSQL on Linux with SSD drives which would be
>> in a RAID 1 configuration with Hardware RAID.
>>
>> My first question is essentially: are
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Steven Schlansker wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Matt Brock wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> We're intending to deploy PostgreSQL on Linux with SSD drives which would be
>> in a RAID 1 configuration with Hardware RAID.
>>
>> My first question is essentially: ar
On May 10, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Matt Brock wrote:
> Hello.
>
> We're intending to deploy PostgreSQL on Linux with SSD drives which would be
> in a RAID 1 configuration with Hardware RAID.
>
> My first question is essentially: are there any issues we need to be aware of
> when running PostgreSQL
Steve Clark escribió:
> Well we have dual redundant power supplies on separate UPS so could something
> go wrong yes, but a tornado could
> come along and destroy the building also.
.. hence your standby server across the country?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Po
On 5/10/2013 11:23 AM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
There's also the 520 series, which has better performance than the 320
series (which is EOL now).
I wouldn't use the 520 series for production database storage -- it has
the Sandforce controller and apparently no power failure protection.
--
On 5/10/2013 11:20 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I find the s3700 to be superior to the 710 in just about every way
(although you're right -- it is suitable for database use). merlin
The s3700 series replaces the 710 so it should be superior :)
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-gen
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, David Boreham
> wrote:
>> On 5/10/2013 10:21 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>>
>>> As it turns out the list of flash drives are suitable for database use is
>>> surprisingly small. The s3700 I noted upthread
On 05/10/2013 12:46 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Evan D. Hoffman
wrote:
I'd expect to use a RAID controller with either BBU or NVRAM cache to handle
that, and that the server itself would be on UPS for a production DB. That
said, a standby replica DB on conventio
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> On 5/10/2013 10:21 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> As it turns out the list of flash drives are suitable for database use is
>> surprisingly small. The s3700 I noted upthread seems to be specifically
>> built with databases in mind and is li
On 5/10/2013 10:21 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
As it turns out the list of flash drives are suitable for database use
is surprisingly small. The s3700 I noted upthread seems to be
specifically built with databases in mind and is likely the best
choice for new deployments. The older Intel 320 is a
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Evan D. Hoffman
wrote:
> I'd expect to use a RAID controller with either BBU or NVRAM cache to handle
> that, and that the server itself would be on UPS for a production DB. That
> said, a standby replica DB on conventional disk is definitely a good idea in
> any
I'd expect to use a RAID controller with either BBU or NVRAM cache to
handle that, and that the server itself would be on UPS for a production
DB. That said, a standby replica DB on conventional disk is definitely a
good idea in any case.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Evan D. Hoffman
wrote:
> Not sure of your space requirements, but I'd think a RAID 10 of 8x or more
> Samsung 840 Pro 256/512 GB would be the best value. Using a simple mirror
> won't get you the reliability that you want since heavy writing will burn
> the drive
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Matt Brock wrote:
> After googling this for a while, it seems that High Endurance MLC is only
> starting to rival SLC for endurance and write performance in the very latest,
> cutting-edge hardware. In general, though, it seems it would be fair to say
> that SL
Not sure of your space requirements, but I'd think a RAID 10 of 8x or more
Samsung 840 Pro 256/512 GB would be the best value. Using a simple mirror
won't get you the reliability that you want since heavy writing will burn
the drives out over time, and if you're writing the exact same content to
b
On 5/10/2013 9:19 AM, Matt Brock wrote:
After googling this for a while, it seems that High Endurance MLC is only
starting to rival SLC for endurance and write performance in the very latest,
cutting-edge hardware. In general, though, it seems it would be fair to say
that SLCs are still a bett
After googling this for a while, it seems that High Endurance MLC is only
starting to rival SLC for endurance and write performance in the very latest,
cutting-edge hardware. In general, though, it seems it would be fair to say
that SLCs are still a better bet for databases than MLC?
The number
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Matt Brock wrote:
> Hello.
>
> We're intending to deploy PostgreSQL on Linux with SSD drives which would be
> in a RAID 1 configuration with Hardware RAID.
>
> My first question is essentially: are there any issues we need to be aware of
> when running PostgreSQL
Hello.
We're intending to deploy PostgreSQL on Linux with SSD drives which would be in
a RAID 1 configuration with Hardware RAID.
My first question is essentially: are there any issues we need to be aware of
when running PostgreSQL 9 on CentOS 6 on a server with SSD drives in a Hardware
RAID 1
37 matches
Mail list logo
