Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Well, the problem is that you're using RAID5, which has a huge write
> overhead. You're unlikely to get good performance with it.
Apparently. But I had no idea that the performance hit would be that big.
Running bonnie or copying a large file with dd show that the card can do 30-50
MB/sec. Running a large update on my postgresql database however, show a
throughtput of ~ 2MB/sec, doing between ~ 2500 - 2300 writes/second (avarage).
with an utilisation of almost always 100%, and large await times ( almost
always > 700), large io-wait percentages (>50%), all measured with iostat.
> Also, it sounds like sda and sdb are not mirrored. If that's the case,
> you have no protection from a drive failure taking out your entire
> database, because you'd lose pg_xlog.
>
> If you want better performance your best bets are to either
> setup RAID10 or if you don't care about the data, just go to RAID0.
Because it is just my development machine I think I will opt for the last
option. More diskspace left.
Groeten,
Joost Kraaijeveld
Askesis B.V.
Molukkenstraat 14
6524NB Nijmegen
tel: 024-3888063 / 06-51855277
fax: 024-3608416
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: www.askesis.nl
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
