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

Re: Slow Performance on a XEON E5504

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Felix Schubert <input(at)fescon(dot)de>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Slow Performance on a XEON E5504
Date: 2012-08-25 13:04:51
Message-ID: CAOR=d=2L8G+Y33s3gRJcGoVrDPYxs5rMgFP_8BqUbW0bzJHJTA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Felix Schubert <input(at)fescon(dot)de> wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> the controller is a HP i410 running 3x300GB SAS 15K / Raid 5
>
> Well it sounds like it does NOT have a battery back caching module on
> it, am I right?

Also what software did you use to benchmark your drive subsystem?
Bonnie++ is a good place to start.  There are better suites out there
but it's been a while for me since I've used them.

Also note the HP i410 is not the fastest RAID controller ever, but it
should be faster than this if it has a battery backed cache on it
which will allow write-back operation.  Without it the controller will
default to write-through, which is much slower.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Shaun ThomasDate: 2012-08-25 14:39:11
Subject: Re: Loose Index Scans by Planner?
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2012-08-25 12:59:45
Subject: Re: Slow Performance on a XEON E5504

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