| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Enrico Sirola" <enrico(dot)sirola(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin <justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com>, "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 |
| Date: | 2008-03-17 21:57:20 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10803171457v11d0b607p2eb594a02284114c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Enrico Sirola <enrico(dot)sirola(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> Il giorno 17/mar/08, alle ore 20:38, Justin ha scritto:
>
> > it is a RAID 10 controller with 6 SAS 10K 73 gig drives. The
> > server is 3 weeks old now.
> >
> > it has 16 gigs of RAM
> > 2 quad core Xenon 1.88 Ghz processors
> > 2 gig Ethernet cards. RAID controller perc 6/i with battery backup
> > 512meg cache, setup not lie about fsync
> >
> > WAL is on a RAID 0 drive along with the OS
>
> Did you try with a single raid 10 hosting DB + WAL? It gave me much
> better performances on similar hardware
> Bye,
Note that it can often be advantageous to have one big physical
partition on RAID-10 and to then break it into logical partitions for
the computer, so that you have a partition with just ext2 for the WAL
and since it has its own file system you usually get better
performance without having to actually hard partition out a separate
RAID-1 or RAID-10 for WAL.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrej Ricnik-Bay | 2008-03-17 22:06:50 | Re: performance tools |
| Previous Message | Enrico Sirola | 2008-03-17 20:58:31 | Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 |