| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| Date: | 2010-10-23 21:03:06 |
| Message-ID: | 4CC34D8A.4050606@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-www |
> Even if it's possible, it's far from clear to me that it would be an
> improvement. The author estimates (apparently somewhat loosely)
> that it's a 5% to 10% performance hit in InnoDB; I'm far from
> certain that full_page_writes cost us that much. Does anyone have
> benchmark numbers handy?
It most certainly can, depending on your CPU saturation and I/O support.
I've seen a 10% improvement in througput time from turning off
full_page_writes on some machines, such as when we were doing the
SpecJAppserver benchmarks on Solaris.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Mansion | 2010-10-24 08:05:19 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-23 16:41:33 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Mansion | 2010-10-24 08:05:19 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| Previous Message | Rob Wultsch | 2010-10-23 04:07:49 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |