Re: Reliability recommendations
От | Dan Gorman |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reliability recommendations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 125CA0A8-6142-4DF5-822E-CF0B0C46B4C1@hi5.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reliability recommendations (Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reliability recommendations
Re: Reliability recommendations |
Список | pgsql-performance |
All, Was that sequential reads? If so, yeah you'll get 110MB/s? How big was the datafile size? 8MB? Yeah, you'll get 110MB/s. 2GB? No, they can't sustain that. There are so many details missing from this test that it's hard to have any context around it :) I was getting about 40-50MB/s on a PV with 14 disks on a RAID10 in real world usage. (random IO and fully saturating a Dell 1850 with 4 concurrent threads (to peg the cpu on selects) and raw data files) Best Regards, Dan Gorman On Feb 24, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > Luke Lonergan wrote: > >> I'd be more shocked if this weren't also true of nearly all SCSI >> HW RAID >> adapters of this era. If you had ordered an HP DL380 server you'd >> get about >> the same performance. >> BTW - I don't think there's anything reasonable about 50-55 MB/s >> from 6 >> disks, I'd put the minimum for this era machine at 5 x 30 = 150MB/s. > > He was quoting for 6 disk RAID 10 - I'm thinking 3 x 30MB/s = 90MB/ > s is probably more correct? Having aid that, your point is still > completely correct - the performance @55MB/s is poor (e.g. my *ata* > system with 2 disk RAID0 does reads @110MB/s). > > cheers > > Mark > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: