On 06/07/16 07:17, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
Hi,We had a similar situation and the best performance was with 64MB background_bytes and 512 MB dirty_bytes. Tigran. On Jul 5, 2016 16:51, Kaixi Luo <kaixi...@gmail.com> wrote: Here are my server specs: RAID1 - 2x480GB Samsung SSD with power loss protection (will be used to store the PostgreSQL database) RAID1 - 2x240GB Crucial SSD with power loss protection. (will be used to store PostgreSQL transactions logs)
Can you tell the exact model numbers for the Samsung and Crucial SSD's? It typically matters! E.g I have some Crucial M550 that have capacitors and (originally) claimed to be power off safe, but with testing have been shown to be not really power off safe at all. I'd be dubious about Samsungs too.
The Intel Datacenter range (S3700 and similar) are known to have power off safety that does work.
regards Mark -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
