From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Felix Schubert <input(at)fescon(dot)de> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Slow Performance on a XEON E5504 |
Date: | 2012-08-25 13:04:51 |
Message-ID: | CAOR=d=2L8G+Y33s3gRJcGoVrDPYxs5rMgFP_8BqUbW0bzJHJTA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Felix Schubert <input(at)fescon(dot)de> wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> the controller is a HP i410 running 3x300GB SAS 15K / Raid 5
>
> Well it sounds like it does NOT have a battery back caching module on
> it, am I right?
Also what software did you use to benchmark your drive subsystem?
Bonnie++ is a good place to start. There are better suites out there
but it's been a while for me since I've used them.
Also note the HP i410 is not the fastest RAID controller ever, but it
should be faster than this if it has a battery backed cache on it
which will allow write-back operation. Without it the controller will
default to write-through, which is much slower.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shaun Thomas | 2012-08-25 14:39:11 | Re: Loose Index Scans by Planner? |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2012-08-25 12:59:45 | Re: Slow Performance on a XEON E5504 |