Has anyone tried putting the database on SSD? Any thoughts to share?
We are running 10.0. From the questions I asked, it would appear that map load times didn't receive any attention in 10.1.
From extensive dev discussions early this year, it would appear than most of the performance limitations concerning map load times is due to a third party component that is in use.
Each map is scanned from disk every few seconds in a serial process. Also the way the account limitations are encoded in the map means that each user must have a separate cached map maintained (so we didn't get much performance advantage from the cached map process).
The component in use needs to be updated to extract the map directly from the database (rather than the file system), the account limitations need to be separated from the map, and the code serialization issue needs to be dealt with.
Unfortunately I think that we are perhaps on the outer edge of the envelope in terms of map load time - most reports I see don't have the load time issues we suffer (it's our biggest issue that fast cpu and io can't seem to solve).
Sav.
I thought about it a lot but it basically just costs way to much in my opinion . And you have to be careful with SSDs while they are faster in most cases there are some situations in which they have trouble. A busy DB with a lot of small reads and writes might be an issue.
I went with RAID 10 on my new SQL box for SolarWinds and it seems to be doing just fine. Our DB size is right at 150GB.
We purchased a couple of iofusion (iodrives - http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodrive/) for each of our Orion and NCM database servers.
We run DL380G6 machines with 8x15k drives in a RAID10 configuration, and a mirrored pair of iodrives. The Orion/NCM databases sit on the iodrives, and system tables etc sit on the spinning disk.
Given the databases are quite small, it's an ideal application for these SSD's.
As you can imagine, we don't have any IO issues at this time in terms of the database (they are PCI bus attached and very fast even compared to normal SATA attached SSD drives).
It is quite interesting however to see what isn't impacted by having faster io speeds - for instance our map load times didn't change (which tends to indicate a performance issue not related to cpu or io speed - perhaps a serial coding issue). Was also interesting to note that the map cache directory actually drives more read io load than the database in our implementation....(not something I expected to see).
our map load times didn't change
Exactly what I was hoping NOT to read. Which version of Orion are you running?
