Considering Solid State Drives - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Allan Kamau
Subject Considering Solid State Drives
Date
Msg-id AANLkTikkx6-rMAQ7z6E40Qg2MGSxo-jJHPszgGZ=fxyt@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Considering Solid State Drives  ("Marc Mamin" <M.Mamin@intershop.de>)
Re: Considering Solid State Drives  (Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org>)
Re: Considering Solid State Drives  (Radosław Smogura <mail@smogura.eu>)
Re: Considering Solid State Drives  ("mark" <dvlhntr@gmail.com>)
Re: Considering Solid State Drives  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-general
Hi,
As part of datamining activity. I have some plpgsql functions
(executed in parallel, up to 6 such concurrent calls) that perform
some reads and writes of large number of (maybe 10000) records at a
time to a table having multi-column primary key.
It seems the writing of these few thousands records is taking a long
time (up to 5mins in some cases).
Running vmstat reports %iowait between 15 and 24 on a single 7200rpm
SATA drive, six core (Phenom II) "server".

I am now thinking of investing in a SSD (Solid State Drive), and maybe
choosing between "Crucial Technology 256GB Crucial M225 Series
2.5-Inch Solid State Drive (CT256M225)" and "Intel X25-M G2 (160GB) -
Intel MLC". I have looked at the comparison statistics given here
"http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/137?vs=126" that suggests that
the Intel offering is more geared for small random write operations.

After googling I found little resent content (including survival
statistics) of using SSDs in a write intensive database environment.

Kindly advice,

Allan.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Rob Sargent
Date:
Subject: Re: Basic Tutorials for 9.0
Next
From: AI Rumman
Date:
Subject: good settings for DB parameters such as shared_buffers, checkpoint_segment in Postrgesql 9