| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Rory Campbell-Lange <rory(at)campbell-lange(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Advice sought : new database server |
| Date: | 2012-03-04 19:51:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=0cm+Bra9oDk2Qk7XxH3hierf3zGM9sr_UGwEzokbSy_g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> wrote:
> On 03/04/2012 03:58 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
>>
>> I'd be grateful for advice on specifying the new server
>>
>> providing about 230GB of usable storage, 150GB of which is on an LV
>> providing reconfigurable space for the databases which are served off an
>> XFS formatted volume.
>>
>
> Do you mean LVM? I've heard that LVM limits IO, so if you want full speed
> you might wanna drop LVM. (And XFS supports increasing fs size, and when
> are you ever really gonna want to decrease fs size?).
It certainly did in the past, I don't know if anyone's done any
conclusive testing on in recently, but circa 2005 to 2008 we were
running RHEL 4 and LVM limited the machine by quite a bit, with max
sequential throughput dropping off by 50% or more on bigger ios
subsystems. I.e. a 600MB/s system would be lucky to hit 300MB/s with
a LV on top.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rory Campbell-Lange | 2012-03-05 12:26:12 | Re: Advice sought : new database server |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2012-03-04 19:49:57 | Re: Advice sought : new database server |