From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and |
Date: | 2006-08-10 15:35:10 |
Message-ID: | 1155224109.20252.144.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Mike,
>
> On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
> >> I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from
> >> a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well.
> >
> > If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate
> > partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog).
>
> If he's doing the same thing on both systems (Sun and HP) and the HP
> performance is dramatically worse despite using more disks and having faster
> CPUs and more RAM, ISTM the problem isn't the configuration.
>
> Add to this the fact that the Sun machine is CPU bound while the HP is I/O
> wait bound and I think the problem is the disk hardware or the driver
> therein.
I agree. The problem here looks to be the RAID controller.
Steve, got access to a different RAID controller to test with?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Poe | 2006-08-10 15:47:05 | Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and |
Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-08-10 15:15:38 | Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and |