![]() Just check first! as in my example it might decrease your performance.Īlso I will try to test a sever with more ssd and see if I could prevent TPS down while archiving redo. So I am not saying, use SSD instead of Nvme. if I have to chance to use this nvme, probably putting redo log file on this let me have much more TPS than that SSD. It has around 70MB/s write speed at 512 Byte. more reliable but has lower performance on some points.įor example, this is a Samsung 970 Pro Atto result: hosting companies uses “datacenter edition” nvme drives mostly. of course this is not true for all Nvme drives. Nvme disks are mostly designed to process big files in big chunks but not for small files in small chunks. If you check 512 Byte test, that SSD has 42 MB/s write speed and Nvme has just 28 MB/s. Crystal disk mark does not check that size by default so I used another disk benchmark utility. Main problem is REDO has a very small block size which is 512 Byte. So what happened here? I check crystal disk mark results and they were awesome. So SSD is 3 times faster than Nvme? not quite actually but I will come up to that later. because SSD is not enough capacity to read and write at the same time. since I have 1 SSD drive I couldn’t test more but I am pretty sure if I have 2 SSDs and put a redo file each of them, that down wouldn’t happen. at some point it goes down around 7,000 TPS. First if as you see in the graph it wasn’t stable. Yes, that is insane! TPS was around 29,000! ((testing result with all DML and select is around 51,000 TPS) almost 3 times faster than Nvme! How is that possible. One of them was locating redo logs into SSD drive not nvme! So, I expected much much less TPS and here is the result: Just for the curiosity, I put those components (redo, data file, archivelog) into different drives or put them same drives. during that time both redo drives are read and archive log drive is written but as you see in the graph there is no down points and I assure you there were 2 – 3 redo log switches during the test above. when a redo log switch occurs, old redo log file is written as archive log. One of the biggest IO bottleneck is REDO and I think the second is archive log. ![]() In the read tests the 970 Pro is impressive, whilst in the write test its the fastest weve seen so far. (testing result with all DML and select is around 18,000 TPS) Crystal Disk Mark 6 Weve had limited models to test since the release of the 6th iteration of Crystal Disk Mark. So TPS has a stable graphics with around 10,800 TPS. so screenshot of “ALL NVME” configuration test result is : I used “stress_test” model to check real transaction per second value, I used 24 simultaneous sessions and I only used INSERT statements. To test database (a stress test actually) I used “swingbench” which is a great tool to test your database, written by Dominic Giles. ![]() Also I just have 1 redo log member for each redo group to eliminate extra disk IO. That way all IO intensive components will be on different Nvme drive and I thought performance would be super high. data files reside on first Nvme, redo logs on second and archive logs on the third. ![]() My basic thought was put every main component on a different NVME and check the “transaction per second” (TPS) value and I installed 19.3 on the first NVME drive and create a database. Now first one of the most popular test, Crystal Disk Mark Results:Īs you see NVME is much much faster on every category on Crystal disk mark. SSD drive is the boot drive and Windows 2019 standard edition on it. On this server there are 3 Nvme drives (TOSHIBA KXG60ZNV512G ) and 1 SSD drive (Micron 1100). I made some tests on a server which is a dedicated server at a hosting company and would like to share the results. Not all Nvme drives has the same basic speed thresholds. Well think again and be careful before an upgrade! so these are incredible speeds and you might want to use them in your database, especially the parts that requires too much IO like REDO Logs. Also, there are many people using raid 0 on nvme drives and some of them has reached 33GB per second read and 28GB write speed. ![]() Current NVME disc drives has around 3500 read and 3000 MB per second which is extremely high. my old samsung ssd drive can read and write around 550/530 MB per second and my even older 2.5inch hdd drive has 45/20 MB per second. Note: “0.00” results indicate the test was skipped.NVME drives are so hot these days. However, Samsung drives are able to maintain consistent levels of performance, regardless of the type or amount of memory installed.ĪMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X 24-Core Processor 3.79GHz We’ve tested a variety of SSD’s with Threadripper motherboards, and have observed that the performance of Phison based NVMe SSD’s varies drastically, depending on the type of and amount of memory installed into the system. In general, we would recommend Samsung 970 or 980 PRO SSD’s for maximum performance. Which SSD’s are recommended for Threadripper-based motherboards? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |