Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and SSDs? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Kaixi Luo
Subject Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and SSDs?
Date
Msg-id CAHo5iygNZ7UnaYh7hwLK+3T6e-g55wRpmTT8qdrrjfHfKRGD3Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and SSDs?  (Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>)
Responses Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and SSDs?  ("Wes Vaske (wvaske)" <wvaske@micron.com>)
List pgsql-performance
It's a Crucial CT250MX200SSD1 and a Samsung MZ7LM480HCHP-00003.

Regards,

Kaixi


On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
On 06/07/16 07:17, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
Hi,

We had a similar situation and the best performance was with 64MB
background_bytes and 512 MB dirty_bytes.

Tigran.

On Jul 5, 2016 16:51, Kaixi Luo <kaixiluo@gmail.com> wrote:


     Here are my server specs:

     RAID1 - 2x480GB Samsung SSD with power loss protection (will be used to
     store the PostgreSQL database)
     RAID1 - 2x240GB Crucial SSD with power loss protection. (will be used to
     store PostgreSQL transactions logs)


Can you tell the exact model numbers for the Samsung and Crucial SSD's? It typically matters! E.g I have some Crucial M550 that have capacitors and (originally) claimed to be power off safe, but with testing have been shown to be not really power off safe at all. I'd be dubious about Samsungs too.

The Intel Datacenter range (S3700 and similar) are known to have power off safety that does work.

regards

Mark



--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Kouber Saparev
Date:
Subject: Re: DELETE takes too much memory
Next
From: "Wes Vaske (wvaske)"
Date:
Subject: Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and SSDs?