Intel 910 vs. FusionIO/ioDrive
Posted 20 July 2013 - 10:54 PM
Intel 910 800GB is ~$4k and does 180k/75k iops 4k random read/write
FusionIO ioDrive2 785GB is ~$10k and allegedly does over 900k iops
The only head to head I could find for db load is here:
..seems like the ioDrive's performance improvement is only marginal. Anybody have links to benchmarks or first hand experience they can share?
Posted 24 July 2013 - 10:10 PM
I think the mysql bench is actually an iodrive duo based on the capacity and I guess the iodrive2 is actually a bit slower than the duo
Posted 01 September 2013 - 06:00 AM
Keep in mind that the internal architecture of MySQL is decades old. MySQL spends a great deal of time on data locking, SQL query optimization, shuffling data between layers, etc. Thus even if your storage subsystem was "infinitely fast" and all storage commands returned instantaneously you would still be limited in how fast MySQL can go.
You'll have to verify this yourself, but my hunch is that in mixed real'life workloads MySQL won't be that much faster on Fusion-IO, not enough to warrant the price.
If you need more than MySQL + Intel 910 gives, then you have two main choices: Find a more scalable RDBMS (i.e. crazy expensive Oracle), or scale horizontally (partitioning over multiple MySQL instances, NoSQL, etc).
Posted 01 September 2013 - 03:30 PM
Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:54 AM
Well right now we'd love to show the Intel 910 in our MySQL (and future application tests) but our sample failed. One of the four controllers died (operates in RAID0) putting it out of commission. Hoping Intel can send a replacement soon, but its been over a month or so now with no replacement.
Hey Kevin - I work @Intel and saw your post. Wow - over a month, that's not right - waaay too long for you to be waiting. If you send me your RMA number, I'll do some checking for you and we'll find out what's holding things up & get things moving quickly for you. Feel free to email me directly at email@example.com
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users