Re: partition question for new server setup
От | Kenneth Marshall |
---|---|
Тема | Re: partition question for new server setup |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20090428184041.GK26100@it.is.rice.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: partition question for new server setup ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: partition question for new server setup
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 01:30:59PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com> wrote: > > > After a reading various articles, I thought that "noop" was the > > right choice when you're using a battery-backed RAID controller. > > The RAID controller is going to cache all data and reschedule the > > writes anyway, so the kernal schedule is irrelevant at best, and can > > slow things down. > > Wouldn't that depend on the relative sizes of those caches? In a > not-so-hypothetical example, we have machines with 120 GB OS cache, > and 256 MB BBU RAID controller cache. We seem to benefit from > elevator=deadline at the OS level. > > -Kevin > This was my understanding as well. If your RAID controller had a lot of well managed cache, then the noop scheduler was a win. Less performant RAID controllers benefit from teh deadline scheduler. Cheers, Ken
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: