| From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarim(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table |
| Date: | 1999-11-02 02:35:00 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.19991101183500.00ab5d80@mail.pacifier.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 06:24 PM 11/1/99 -0800, Mike Mascari wrote:
>I know this is a VERY long shot, but... what were the READ/WRITE ratios
>between the old version and the new version? Perhaps the computation
>of the checksum (sic) blocks under RAID5 caused the unexpected behavior.
>With RAID 5 increasing read performance but decreasing writes, one might
>expect a new algorithm which say, halves reads, but increases writes
>slightly to not realize the same benefits as under a normal disk system or
>a RAID 1 (or, better yet, a RAID 0+1) array.
RAID 5, not the operating system, might be getting in the way...it
would be interesting to test this on a Linux 2.2 kernel without
the RAID 5 complication.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-11-02 02:35:48 | Re: [HACKERS] change in name of perl? |
| Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 1999-11-02 02:24:03 | Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table |