Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,"Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, "Scott Carey" <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>
Cc: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "<david(at)lang(dot)hm>" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, "Pgsqlperformance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Francisco Reyes" <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
Date: 2010-03-09 14:50:28
Message-ID: 4B960BD4020000250002FA5D@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

>> I'm curious what you feel those weaknesses are.
>
> Handling lots of small files, especially deleting them, is really
> slow on XFS.
> Databases don't care about that.

I know of at least one exception to that -- when we upgraded and got
a newer version of the kernel where XFS has write barriers on by
default, some database transactions which were creating and dropping
temporary tables in a loop became orders of magnitude slower. Now,
that was a silly approach to getting the data that was needed and I
helped them rework the transactions, but something which had worked
acceptably suddenly didn't anymore.

Since we have a BBU hardware RAID controller, we can turn off write
barriers safely, at least according to this page:

http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q._Should_barriers_be_enabled_with_storage_which_has_a_persistent_write_cache.3F

This reduces the penalty for creating and deleting lots of small
files.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2010-03-09 15:03:16 Re: Out of shared memory in postgres 8.4.2 and locks
Previous Message david 2010-03-09 14:49:10 Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics