From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Hammond <ahammond(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
Cc: | Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: NAS, SAN or any alternate solution ? |
Date: | 2004-09-22 20:52:59 |
Message-ID: | 1095886379.24440.56.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> | I've used both a NetApp and Hitachi based SANs with PostgreSQL. Both
> | work as well as expected, but do require some tweeking as they normally
> | are not optimized for the datablock size that PostgreSQL likes to deal
> | with (8k by default) -- this can make as much as a 50% difference in
> | performance levels.
> I'm also not entirely sure how to make the datablocks line up with the
> filesystem blocks. Any suggestions on this would be greatly appreciated.
We just played with Veritas settings while running pg_bench on a 200GB
database. I no longer have access to the NetApp, but the settings for
the Hitachi are below.
In tunefstab we have:
read_pref_io=8192,read_nstream=4,write_pref_io=8192,write_nstream=2
In fstab it's:
defaults,mincache=tmpcache,noatime
If you have better settings, please shoot them over so we can try them
out. Perhaps even get someone over there to write a new SAN section in
the Tuning Chapter.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aaron Werman | 2004-09-22 21:43:16 | Re: Caching of Queries |
Previous Message | Andrew Hammond | 2004-09-22 20:34:47 | Re: NAS, SAN or any alternate solution ? |