From: | Stef Telford <stef(at)ummon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
Cc: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Raid 10 chunksize |
Date: | 2009-04-01 14:39:38 |
Message-ID: | 49D37CAA.6080100@ummon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Scott Carey wrote:
>>
>> A little extra info here >> md, LVM, and some other tools do not
>> allow the file system to use write barriers properly.... So
>> those are on the bad list for data integrity with SAS or SATA
>> write caches without battery back-up. However, this is NOT an
>> issue on the postgres data partition. Data fsync still works
>> fine, its the file system journal that might have out-of-order
>> writes. For xlogs, write barriers are not important, only
>> fsync() not lying.
>>
>> As an additional note, ext4 uses checksums per block in the
>> journal, so it is resistant to out of order writes causing
>> trouble. The test compared to here was on ext4, and most likely
>> the speed increase is partly due to that.
>>
>>
>
> [Looks at Stef's config - 2x 7200 rpm SATA RAID 0] I'm still
> highly suspicious of such a system being capable of outperforming
> one with the same number of (effective) - much faster - disks
> *plus* a dedicated WAL disk pair... unless it is being a little
> loose about fsync! I'm happy to believe ext4 is better than ext3 -
> but not that much!
>
> However, its great to have so many different results to compare
> against!
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>
Hello Mark,
For the record, this is a 'base' debian 5 install (with openVZ but
postgreSQL is running on the base hardware, not inside a container)
and I have -explicitly- enabled sync in the conf. Eg;
fsync = on # turns forced
synchronization on or off
synchronous_commit = on # immediate fsync at commit
#wal_sync_method = fsync # the default is the first option
Infact, if I turn -off- sync commit, it gets about 200 -slower-
rather than faster. Curiously, I also have an intel x25-m winging it's
way here for testing/benching under postgreSQL (along with a vertex
120gb). I had one of the nice lads on the OCZ forum bench against a
30gb vertex ssd, and if you think -my- TPS was crazy.. you should have
seen his.
postgres(at)rob-desktop:~$ /usr/lib/postgresql/8.3/bin/pgbench -c 24 -t
12000 test_db
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 100
number of clients: 24
number of transactions per client: 12000
number of transactions actually processed: 288000/288000
tps = 3662.200088 (including connections establishing)
tps = 3664.823769 (excluding connections establishing)
(Nb; Thread here;
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54038 )
Curiously, I think with SSD's there may have to be an 'off' flag
if you put the xlog onto an ssd. It seems to complain about 'too
frequent checkpoints'.
I can't wait for -either- of the drives to arrive. I want to see
in -my- system what the speed is like for SSD's. The dataset I have to
work with is fairly small (30-40GB) so, using an 80GB ssd (even a few
raided) is possible for me. Thankfully ;)
Regards
Stef
(ps. I should note, running postgreSQL in a prod environment -without-
a nice UPS is never going to happen on my watch, so, turning on
write-cache (to me) seems like a no-brainer really if it makes this
kind of boost possible)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAknTfKMACgkQANG7uQ+9D9XZ7wCfdU3JDXj1f2Em9dt7GdcxRbWR
eHUAn1zDb3HKEiAb0d/0R1MubtE44o/k
=HXmP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-04-01 16:08:15 | Re: Raid 10 chunksize |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-04-01 14:23:46 | Re: PostgreSQL |