Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: RAID stripe size question

From: Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com>
To: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RAID stripe size question
Date: 2006-07-17 11:40:36
Message-ID: 44BB7734.8080801@logix-tt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Hi, Mikael,

Mikael Carneholm wrote:

> This is something I'd also would like to test, as a common best-practice
> these days is to go for a SAME (stripe all, mirror everything) setup.
> From a development perspective it's easier to use SAME as the developers
> won't have to think about physical location for new tables/indices, so
> if there's no performance penalty with SAME I'll gladly keep it that
> way.

Usually, it's not the developers task to care about that, but the DBAs
responsibility.

>> And look into the commit_delay/commit_siblings settings, they allow you
> to deal latency for throughput (means a little more latency per
> transaction, but much more transactions per second throughput for the
> whole system.)
> 
> In a previous test, using cd=5000 and cs=20 increased transaction
> throughput by ~20% so I'll definitely fiddle with that in the coming
> tests as well.

How many parallel transactions do you have?

Markus



-- 
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf.     | Software Development GIS

Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Mikael CarneholmDate: 2006-07-17 12:52:28
Subject: Re: RAID stripe size question
Previous:From: Mikael CarneholmDate: 2006-07-17 11:33:55
Subject: Re: RAID stripe size question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group