Re: Write performance
От | Jesper Krogh |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Write performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4C238FB5.2080302@krogh.cc обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Write performance (Janning Vygen <vygen@kicktipp.de>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 2010-06-24 15:45, Janning Vygen wrote: > On Thursday 24 June 2010 15:16:05 Janning wrote: > >> On Thursday 24 June 2010 14:53:57 Matthew Wakeling wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Janning wrote: >>> >>>> We have a 12 GB RAM machine with intel i7-975 and using >>>> 3 disks "Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500341AS (1.5 TB)" >>>> >>>> >>> For each drive, you will be able to read/write approximately 8kB / >>> 0.0085s, giving 941kB per second. If you have multiple processes all >>> doing random access, then you may be able to utilise both discs and get >>> double that. >>> >> So with your calculation I have a maximum of 2MB/s random access. So i >> really need to upgrade my disk configuration! >> > i was looking at tomshardware.com and the fastest disk is > > Maxtor Atlas 15K II * 8K147S0,SAS,147 GB, 16 MB Cache,15000 rpm > > with 5.5 ms random access time. > > So even if i switch to those disks i can only reach a perfomace gain of 1.5, > right? > > To achieve a better disk performance by factor of ten, i need a raid-10 setup > with 12 disks (so i have 6 raid-1 bundles). Or are there other factors with > high end disks? > Well. On the write-side, you can add in a Raid controller with Battery backed write cache to not make the writes directly hit disk. This improves the amount of writing you can do. On the read-side you can add more memory to your server so a significant part of your most active dataset is cached in memory. It depends on the actual sizes and workload what gives the most benefit for you. -- Jesper
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: