Re: Filesystem benchmarking for pg 8.3.3 server
От | Henrik |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Filesystem benchmarking for pg 8.3.3 server |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 858F1B68-A69E-4DAD-B29E-EA8C8210C20F@mac.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Filesystem benchmarking for pg 8.3.3 server (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Filesystem benchmarking for pg 8.3.3 server
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Hi again all, Just wanted to give you an update. Talked to Dell tech support and they recommended using write- through(!) caching in RAID10 configuration. Well, it didn't work and got even worse performance. Anyone have an estimated what a RAID10 on 4 15k SAS disks should generate in random writes? I'm really keen on trying Scotts suggestion on using the PERC/6 with mirror sets only and then make the stripe with Linux SW raid. Thanks for all the input! Much appreciated. Cheers, Henke 11 aug 2008 kl. 17.56 skrev Greg Smith: > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Henrik wrote: > >>> Normally, when a SATA implementation is running significantly >>> faster than a SAS one, it's because there's some write cache in >>> the SATA disks turned on (which they usually are unless you go out >>> of your way to disable them). >> Lucky for my I have BBU on all my controllers cards and I'm also >> not using the SATA drives for database. > >> From how you responded I don't think I made myself clear. In >> addition to > the cache on the controller itself, each of the disks has its own > cache, probably 8-32MB in size. Your controllers may have an option > to enable or disable the caches on the individual disks, which would > be a separate configuration setting from turning the main controller > cache on or off. Your results look like what I'd expect if the > individual disks caches on the SATA drives were on, while those on > the SAS controller were off (which matches the defaults you'll find > on some products in both categories). Just something to double-check. > > By the way: getting useful results out of iozone is fairly > difficult if you're unfamiliar with it, there are lots of ways you > can set that up to run tests that aren't completely fair or that you > don't run them for long enough to give useful results. I'd suggest > doing a round of comparisons with bonnie++, which isn't as flexible > but will usually give fair results without needing to specify any > parameters. The "seeks" number that comes out of bonnie++ is a > combined read/write one and would be good for double-checking > whether the unexpected results you're seeing are independant of the > benchmark used. > > -- > * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com > Baltimore, MD > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > ) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: