Re: extremly low memory usage

Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 16:13 -0400, Ron wrote:
>
>>At 10:54 AM 8/21/2005, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
>>

...

>>So you have 2 controllers each with 2 external slots? But you are
>>currently only using 1 controller and only one external slot on that
>>controller?
>
>
> Sorry, no. I have one dual channel card in the system and two
> controllers on the array. Dell PowerVault 220S w/ PERC4eDC-PCI Express
>
>

...

>>Regardless of the above, each of these controllers should still be
>>good for about 80-85% of 640MB/s, or ~510-540 MB/s apiece when doing
>>raw sequential IO if you plug 3-4 fast enough HD's into each SCSI
>>channel. Cheetah 15K.4's certainly are fast enough. Optimal setup
>>is probably to split each RAID 1 pair so that one HD is on each of
>>the SCSI channels, and then RAID 0 those pairs. That will also
>>protect you from losing the entire disk subsystem if one of the SCSI
>>channels dies.
>
> I like this idea, but how exactly does one bond the two channels
> together? Won't this cause me to have both an /dev/sdb and an /dev/sdc?
>

Well, even if you did, you could always either use software raid, or lvm
to turn it into a single volume.

It also depends what the controller card bios would let you get away
with. Some cards would let you setup 4 RAID1's (one drive from each
channel), and then create a RAID0 of those pairs. Software raid should
do this without any problem. And can even be done such that it can be
grown in the future, as well as work across multiple cards (though the
latter is supported by some cards as well).

>
>
>>That 128MB of buffer cache may very well be too small to keep the IO
>>rate up, and/or there may be a more subtle problem with the LSI card,
>>and/or you may have a configuration problem, but _something(s)_ need
>>fixing since you are only getting raw sequential IO of ~100-150MB/s
>>when it should be above 500MB/s.
>
>
> It looks like there's a way to add more memory to it.

This memory probably helps more in writing than reading. If you are
reading the same area over and over, it might end up being a little bit
of extra cache for that (but it should already be cached in system RAM,
so you don't really get anything).

...

>>Initial reads are only going to be as fast as your HD subsystem, so
>>there's a reason for making the HD subsystem faster even if all you
>>care about is reads. In addition, I'll repeat my previous advice
>>that upgrading to 16GB of RAM would be well worth it for you.
>
>
> 12GB is my max. I may run with it for a while and see.

If your working set truly is 10GB, then you can get a massive
performance increase even at 12GB. If your working set is 10GB and you
have 6GB of RAM, it probably is always swapping out what it just read
for the new stuff, even though you will read that same thing again in a
few seconds. So rather than just paying for the 4GB that can't be
cached, you pay for the whole 10.

John
=:->

>
>
>>Hope this helps,
>>Ron Peacetree
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>> match