From: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Read/Write block sizes |
Date: | 2005-08-23 23:24:24 |
Message-ID: | 20050823232424.GM8667@mathom.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:09:09PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
>What we have been finding, as RAID controllers get smarter, is that it
>is getting increasingly futile to try to attach knobs to 'disk stuff;'
>it is *way* more effective to add a few more spindles to an array than
>it is to fiddle with which disks are to be allocated to what database
>'objects.'
That statement doesn't say anything about trying to maximize performance
to or from a disk array. Yes, controllers are getting smarter--but they
aren't omnicient. IME an I/O bound sequential table scan doesn't get
data moving off the disk nearly as fast as say, a dd with a big ibs.
Why? There's obviously a lot of factors at work, but one of those
factors is that the raid controller can optimize "grab this meg" a lot
more than it can optimize "grab this 8k".
Mike Stone
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PFC | 2005-08-23 23:29:42 | Re: Caching by Postgres |
Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2005-08-23 23:12:38 | Re: Read/Write block sizes (Was: Caching by Postgres) |