Re: SAN vs Internal Disks
От | Brian Hurt |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SAN vs Internal Disks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 46E196C0.5020508@janestcapital.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SAN vs Internal Disks ("Bryan Murphy" <bryan.murphy@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Bryan Murphy wrote: >Our database server connects to the san via iSCSI over Gig/E using >jumbo frames. File system is XFS (noatime). > > > > ... >Throughput, however, kinda sucks. I just can't get the kind of >throughput to it I was hoping to get. When our memory cache is blown, >the database can be downright painful for the next few minutes as >everything gets paged back into the cache. > > > Remember that Gig/E is bandwidth limited to about 100 Mbyte/sec. Maybe a little faster than that downhill with a tailwind, but not much. You're going to get much better bandwidth connecting to a local raid card talking to local disks simply due to not having the ethernet as a bottleneck. iSCSI is easy to set up and manage, but it's slow. This is the big advantage Fibre Channel has- serious performance. You can have multiple channels on a single fibre channel card- IIRC, QLogic's cards have a default of 4 channels- each pumping 400 Mbyte/sec. At which point the local bus rapidly becomes the bottleneck. Of course, this comes at the cost of a signifigant increase in complexity. Brian
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: