a 14 drive stripe will max out the PCI bus long before anything else,
the only reason for a stripe this size is to get a total accessible
size up.  A 6 drive RAID 10 on a good controller can get up to
400Mb/sec which is pushing the limit of the PCI bus (taken from
offical 3ware 9500S 8MI benchmarks).  140 drives is not going to beat
6 drives because you've run out of bandwidth on the PCI bus.

The debait on RAID 5 rages onward.  The benchmarks I've seen suggest
that RAID 5 is consistantly slower than RAID 10 with the same number
of drivers, but others suggest that RAID 5 can be much faster that
RAID 10 (see arstechnica.com) (Theoretical performance of RAID 5 is
inline with a RAID 0 stripe of N-1 drives, RAID 10 has only N/2 drives
in a stripe, perfomance should be nearly double - in theory of

35 Trans/sec is pretty slow, particularly if they are only one row at
a time.  I typicaly get 200-400/sec on our DB server on a bad day.  Up
to 1100 on a fresh database.

I suggested running a bonnie benchmark, or some other IO perftest to
determine if it's the array itself performing badly, or if there is
something wrong with postgresql.

If the array isn't kicking out at least 50MB/sec read/write
performance, something is wrong.

Until you've isolated the problem to either postgres or the array,
everything else is simply speculation.

In a perfect world, you would have two 6 drive RAID 10s. on two PCI
busses, with system tables on a third parition, and archive logging on
a fourth.  Unsurprisingly this looks alot like the Oracle recommended
minimum config.

Also a note for interest is that this is _software_ raid...

Alex Turner

On 13 Mar 2005 23:36:13 -0500, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arshavir Grigorian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a RAID5 array (mdadm) with 14 disks + 1 spare. This partition has an
> > Ext3 filesystem which is used by Postgres.
> People are going to suggest moving to RAID1+0. I'm unconvinced that RAID5
> across 14 drivers shouldn't be able to keep up with RAID1 across 7 drives
> though. It would be interesting to see empirical data.
> One thing that does scare me is the Postgres transaction log and the ext3
> journal both sharing these disks with the data. Ideally both of these things
> should get (mirrored) disks of their own separate from the data files.
> But 2-3s pauses seem disturbing. I wonder whether ext3 is issuing a cache
> flush on every fsync to get the journal pushed out. This is a new linux
> feature that's necessary with ide but shouldn't be necessary with scsi.
> It would be interesting to know whether postgres performs differently with
> fsync=off. This would even be a reasonable mode to run under for initial
> database loads. It shouldn't make much of a difference with hardware like this
> though. And you should be aware that running under this mode in production
> would put your data at risk.
> --
> greg
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
>       joining column's datatypes do not match

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to