Re: RAID stripe size question
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RAID stripe size question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 44BC29C5.5090607@paradise.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RAID stripe size question ("Mikael Carneholm" <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Mikael Carneholm wrote: > > Btw, here's the bonnie++ results from two different array sets (10+18, > 4+24) on the MSA1500: > > > LUN: DATA, 24 disks, stripe size 64K > ------------------------------------- > Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > --Random- > -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP > /sec %CP > sesell01 32G 59443 97 118515 39 25023 5 30926 49 60835 6 > 531.8 1 > ------Sequential Create------ --------Random > Create-------- > -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- > -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > /sec %CP > 16 2499 90 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 2817 99 +++++ +++ > 10971 100 > It might be interesting to see if 128K or 256K stripe size gives better sequential throughput, while still leaving the random performance ok. Having said that, the seeks/s figure of 531 not that great - for instance I've seen a 12 disk (15K SCSI) system report about 1400 seeks/s in this test. Sorry if you mentioned this already - but what OS and filesystem are you using? (if Linux and ext3, it might be worth experimenting with xfs or jfs). Cheers Mark
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: