Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and SSDs?
От | Kaixi Luo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and SSDs? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHo5iygNZ7UnaYh7hwLK+3T6e-g55wRpmTT8qdrrjfHfKRGD3Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and SSDs? (Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and
SSDs?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
It's a Crucial CT250MX200SSD1 and a Samsung MZ7LM480HCHP-00003.
Regards,
Kaixi
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
On 06/07/16 07:17, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:Hi,
We had a similar situation and the best performance was with 64MB
background_bytes and 512 MB dirty_bytes.
Tigran.
On Jul 5, 2016 16:51, Kaixi Luo <kaixiluo@gmail.com> wrote:
Here are my server specs:
RAID1 - 2x480GB Samsung SSD with power loss protection (will be used to
store the PostgreSQL database)
RAID1 - 2x240GB Crucial SSD with power loss protection. (will be used to
store PostgreSQL transactions logs)
Can you tell the exact model numbers for the Samsung and Crucial SSD's? It typically matters! E.g I have some Crucial M550 that have capacitors and (originally) claimed to be power off safe, but with testing have been shown to be not really power off safe at all. I'd be dubious about Samsungs too.
The Intel Datacenter range (S3700 and similar) are known to have power off safety that does work.
regards
Mark
--
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: