| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, "Kenneth Marshall" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "Whit Armstrong" <armstrong(dot)whit(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: partition question for new server setup |
| Date: | 2009-04-28 18:30:59 |
| Message-ID: | 49F70513.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:
> After a reading various articles, I thought that "noop" was the
> right choice when you're using a battery-backed RAID controller.
> The RAID controller is going to cache all data and reschedule the
> writes anyway, so the kernal schedule is irrelevant at best, and can
> slow things down.
Wouldn't that depend on the relative sizes of those caches? In a
not-so-hypothetical example, we have machines with 120 GB OS cache,
and 256 MB BBU RAID controller cache. We seem to benefit from
elevator=deadline at the OS level.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Whit Armstrong | 2009-04-28 18:37:37 | Re: partition question for new server setup |
| Previous Message | Craig James | 2009-04-28 18:16:44 | Re: partition question for new server setup |