Re: Postgres, fsync and RAID controller with 100M of internal cache & dedicated battery

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: dmitry(at)koterov(dot)ru
Cc: "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Postgres General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgres, fsync and RAID controller with 100M of internal cache & dedicated battery
Date: 2007-08-22 23:49:04
Message-ID: dcc563d10708221649m469c72d8sb809e89132d66bab@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 8/22/07, Dmitry Koterov <dmitry(at)koterov(dot)ru> wrote:
> Also, the controller is configured to use 75% of its memory for write
> caching and 25% - for read caching. So reads cannot flood writes.

128 Meg is a pretty small cache for a modern RAID controller. I
wonder if this one is just a dog performer.

Have you looked at things like the Areca or Escalade with 1g or more
cache on them?

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Max Zorloff 2007-08-23 00:10:24 CPU load high
Previous Message Michael Glaesemann 2007-08-22 23:27:42 Re: Problem with UPDATE and UNIQUE