| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance advice for a new low(er)-power server |
| Date: | 2011-06-16 18:52:03 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTimVn+=DmV79diRWv_m6bHw1UZ_z-g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> There are already three layers involved here:
>
> -Database shared_buffers cache
> -Operating system read/write cache
> -RAID controller cache
>
> I would be skeptical that adding a fourth one near the bottom of this stack
> is likely to help a lot. And you're adding a whole new layer of difficult
> to test reliability issues, too. Overly complicated storage solutions tend
> to introduce complicated failures that corrupt your data in unexpected ways.
Plus each layer is from a different provider. The drive manufacturers
point to the RAID controller maker, the RAID controller people point
at the SSDs you're using, and so on...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-06-16 19:04:16 | Re: Performance advice for a new low(er)-power server |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-06-16 18:43:03 | Re: Performance advice for a new low(er)-power server |