Re: Postgres performance on Veritas VxVM

From: River Tarnell <river(at)loreley(dot)flyingparchment(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres performance on Veritas VxVM
Date: 2009-12-02 19:38:21
Message-ID: 20091202193821.GC7836@loreley.flyingparchment.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Greg Smith:
> Flexibility is often expensive from a performance point of view. We
> regularly tell people here that they have to avoid using Linux's LVM for
> similar reasons--while it shouldn't be so slow, it is. Nothing you can
> do about it but use direct disk partitions instead if you need the
> performance to be good.

Okay, that makes sense. What about using plain slices for the WAL, but
using the VM for the data?

For example, we have 14 disks, so I could allocate 2 for the log in
RAID1 (146GB, which is more than enough), then use the remaining 12
under VxVM for the data.

If I understand right, the critical factor is the WAL write speed; the
VM is easily able to keep up with writes to the data files, since those
are mostly asynchronous. Does this seems like a reasonable solution?

(I'll benchmark this configuration anyway, but I'd be interested in any
comments.)

Thanks,
River.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (HP-UX)

iEYEARECAAYFAksWwi0ACgkQIXd7fCuc5vKxzQCeMB0ECbxedXIcQ+YEhFcuUJzc
7egAn0zbzed5VL/E8UPFReZDhl50LTuK
=NvX6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-12-02 20:09:32 Re: How to get RTREE performance from GIST index?
Previous Message akp geek 2009-12-02 19:37:03 Re: Auto Vaccum