Re: linux deadline i/o elevator tuning

From: "Albe Laurenz *EXTERN*" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
To: "Grzegorz Jaskiewicz *EXTERN*" <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Mark Wong" <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: linux deadline i/o elevator tuning
Date: 2009-04-10 06:47:30
Message-ID: D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C202FF655A@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote:
> acording to kernel folks, anticipatory scheduler is even better for dbs.
> Oh well, it probably means everyone has to test it on their own at the
> end of day.

In my test case, noop and deadline performed well, deadline being a little
better than noop.

Both anticipatory and CFQ sucked big time.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ognjen Blagojevic 2009-04-10 09:47:16 Postgres 8.x on Windows Server in production
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-04-10 06:43:01 Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans?