# Performance with SSD **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [December 21, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-with-ssd/3687 "2010-12-21T20:25:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Berkay\_Mollamustafao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Berkay\_Mollamustafao](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Berkay_Mollamustafao)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-with-ssd/3687/1 "2010-12-21T20:25:28Z")
Hi folks, Has anyone tried ES with SSDs in general, or FusionIO in particular? Some folks are reporting drastic performance increase when used with databases, etc. Curious to find out whether ES usage patterns are conducive to take advantage of this technology. Regards, Berkay Mollamustafaoglu Ph: +1 (571) 766-6292 mberkay on yahoo, google and skype ---
**Author:** ![ppearcy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/ppearcy/32/980_2.png) [@ppearcy](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/ppearcy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-with-ssd/3687/2 "2010-12-21T20:50:02Z")
Hey, We were using SSDs on an old search system because we were disk bound. With ES, our load testing showed us that we were actually CPU bound, mostly because we have enough RAM for a large amount of disk caching. So, we saved some money and got larger non-SSDs. Our servers have the following h/w: - 24 core CPU - 48 GB ram This is with a total index size of ~180GB, 30 million documents. You won't really know until you give it a shot, though. My recommendation is to do load testing and figure out what your bottleneck is without SSDs and if you do appear disk bound, give them a shot. Regards, Paul On Dec 21, 1:25 pm, Berkay Mollamustafaoglu [mber...@gmail.com](mailto:mber...@gmail.com) wrote: > Hi folks, > > Has anyone tried ES with SSDs in general, or FusionIO in particular? Some > folks are reporting drastic performance increase when used with databases, > etc. Curious to find out whether ES usage patterns are conducive to take > advantage of this technology. > > Regards, > Berkay Mollamustafaoglu > Ph: +1 (571) 766-6292 > mberkay on yahoo, google and skype ---
**Author:** ![Berkay\_Mollamustafao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Berkay\_Mollamustafao](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Berkay_Mollamustafao)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-with-ssd/3687/3 "2010-12-22T15:53:57Z")
Hi Paul, Thanks for sharing the info; it is very useful. You're right the best way will be to do the tests. Our application is write heavy so results will likely be different than most. We'll start with virtual environment, check to see where the bottlenecks are and go from there. It's just that FusionIO numbers talked about were very impressive so I'm curious about how much of an impact it would have. Of course, if the app turns out to be CPU constrained, then it is not that relevant. Regards, Berkay Mollamustafaoglu mberkay on yahoo, google and skype On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Paul [ppearcy@gmail.com](mailto:ppearcy@gmail.com) wrote: > Hey, > We were using SSDs on an old search system because we were disk > bound. With ES, our load testing showed us that we were actually CPU > bound, mostly because we have enough RAM for a large amount of disk > caching. > > So, we saved some money and got larger non-SSDs. Our servers have the > following h/w: > > - 24 core CPU > - 48 GB ram > > This is with a total index size of ~180GB, 30 million documents. > > You won't really know until you give it a shot, though. My > recommendation is to do load testing and figure out what your > bottleneck is without SSDs and if you do appear disk bound, give them > a shot. > > Regards, > Paul > > On Dec 21, 1:25 pm, Berkay Mollamustafaoglu [mber...@gmail.com](mailto:mber...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > Has anyone tried ES with SSDs in general, or FusionIO in particular? Some > > folks are reporting drastic performance increase when used with > > databases, > > etc. Curious to find out whether ES usage patterns are conducive to take > > advantage of this technology. > > > > Regards, > > Berkay Mollamustafaoglu > > Ph: +1 (571) 766-6292 > > mberkay on yahoo, google and skype ---
**Author:** ![dbenson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/958977/32.png) [@dbenson](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/dbenson)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-with-ssd/3687/4 "2010-12-22T17:31:11Z")
Paul and I work together and I wanted to add a few additional notes. With adequate memory, search performance will be limited by CPU. We allocate 24G ram (1/2 of total) to ES. The rest is for our search and indexing apps, but mostly for Linux disk cache. Index performance will be more disk bound. When indexing full text documents (we have a lot of 250-500k PDFs) we can see the difference between a system with RAID5 and one with RAID10. In our systems we have 4x146G 15k rpm drives. In our steady state case of indexing new documents, indexing time and load are minimal. Only when building the full index is where we can see disk performance becoming a limiting factor. As a general rule, I'd spend the money to ensure adequate RAM before jumping from high performance HDs to SSDs. David On Dec 22, 8:53 am, Berkay Mollamustafaoglu [mber...@gmail.com](mailto:mber...@gmail.com) wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Thanks for sharing the info; it is very useful. You're right the best way > will be to do the tests. Our application is write heavy so results will > likely be different than most. > > We'll start with virtual environment, check to see where the bottlenecks are > and go from there. It's just that FusionIO numbers talked about were very > impressive so I'm curious about how much of an impact it would have. Of > course, if the app turns out to be CPU constrained, then it is not that > relevant. > > Regards, > Berkay Mollamustafaoglu > mberkay on yahoo, google and skype > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Paul [ppea...@gmail.com](mailto:ppea...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > Hey, > > We were using SSDs on an old search system because we were disk > > bound. With ES, our load testing showed us that we were actually CPU > > bound, mostly because we have enough RAM for a large amount of disk > > caching. > > > So, we saved some money and got larger non-SSDs. Our servers have the > > following h/w: > > > > - 24 core CPU > > - 48 GB ram > > > This is with a total index size of ~180GB, 30 million documents. > > > You won't really know until you give it a shot, though. My > > recommendation is to do load testing and figure out what your > > bottleneck is without SSDs and if you do appear disk bound, give them > > a shot. > > > Regards, > > Paul > > > On Dec 21, 1:25 pm, Berkay Mollamustafaoglu [mber...@gmail.com](mailto:mber...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > Has anyone tried ES with SSDs in general, or FusionIO in particular? Some > > > folks are reporting drastic performance increase when used with > > > databases, > > > etc. Curious to find out whether ES usage patterns are conducive to take > > > advantage of this technology. > > > > Regards, > > > Berkay Mollamustafaoglu > > > Ph: +1 (571) 766-6292 > > > mberkay on yahoo, google and skype ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 4:14am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-with-ssd/3687/5 "2017-07-06T04:14:58Z")