On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Robert Dupuy wrote:
My post is a caution to test the performance, and get your own results.
http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd.html
Please see the entry for October 12th.
I see an editorial based on no experience and little data.
The result page you linked too, shows that you can use an
arbitrarily high number of threads, spread evenly across a large
number of SAS channels, and get the results to scale.
This is Sun's ideal conditions designed to sell the F5100. Now,
real world performance is unimpressive.
It is not clear to me that "real world performance is unimpressive"
since then it is necessary to define what is meant by "real world".
Many real world environments are naturally heavily threaded.
I'm issuing a caution because I think its a benefit. Look at Sun's
numbers for latency
http://www.sun.com/storage/disk_systems/sss/f5100/specs.xml
.41ms
Fast compared to hard drives, but quite slow compared to competing SSD.
You are assuming that the competing SSD vendors measured latency the
same way that Sun did.
Sun has always been conservative with their benchmarks and their
specifications.
I've done testing with the X25-E (Intel 32GB 2.5" SATA form factor
drives).
I'm cautious about the F20, precisely because I would think Sun
would be anxious to prove its faster than this competitor.
Is the X25-E a competitor? I never even crossed my mind that a device
like the X25-E would be a competitor. They don't satisfy the same
requirements. 1K non-volatile write IOPS vs 84k non-volatile write
IOPS. Seems like night and day to me (and I am sure that Sun prices
accordingly).
The only thing I agree with is the need to perform real world testing
for the intended application.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
