Maybe it is a little late to be posting on this thread - but I was doing
pgbench runs with a Raid 0 ATA system and thought the results might be
interesting.
So here they are : pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 -s 5, median of 3 runs on a
Dual PIII 700 512Mb 2x7200 RPM ATA 133 Promise TX200
(same method / Pg
Really solid microcode actually reads the sectors
just written and confirms the write at the hardware level
by comparing it with what is in the controller memory.
It then returns with a successfull confirmation or an error
if differences were detected.
Any data storage device controller, disk,
scott.marlowe wrote:
Was there a performance difference in the set with write cache on or off?
Yes - just in the process of a little study concerning this - I will
post some preliminary results soon
cheers
Mark
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sweet. It may be that the promise is turning off the cache, or that the
> new generation of IDE drives is finally reporting fsync correctly. Was
> there a performance difference in the set with write cache on or off?
Check out this thread. It seem
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Got to going this today, after a small delay due to the arrival of new
> disks,
>
> So the system is 2x700Mhz PIII, 512 Mb, Promise TX2000, 2x40G ATA-133
> Maxtor Diamond+8 .
> The relevent software is Freebsd 4.8 and Postgresql 7.4 Beta 2.
>
> Two
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Scott Chapman wrote:
> On Friday 24 October 2003 16:23, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > Right, but NONE of the benchmarks I've seen have been with IDE drives with
> > their cache disabled, which is the only way to make them reliable under
> > postgresql should something bad happen.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, James Moe wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:24:17 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
> >I would conclude that it not *always* the case that power failure
> >renders the database unuseable.
> >
> >I have just noticed a similar pos
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 11:04:00PM -0700, James Moe wrote:
> Other posts have noted that SCSI never fails under this condition. Apparently SCSI
> drives sense an impending power loss and flush the cache before power completely
> disappears. Speed *and* reliability. Hm.
I understood it differen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:24:17 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>I would conclude that it not *always* the case that power failure
>renders the database unuseable.
>
>I have just noticed a similar posting from Scott were he finds the cache
>enabled case ha
Got to going this today, after a small delay due to the arrival of new
disks,
So the system is 2x700Mhz PIII, 512 Mb, Promise TX2000, 2x40G ATA-133
Maxtor Diamond+8 .
The relevent software is Freebsd 4.8 and Postgresql 7.4 Beta 2.
Two runs of 'pgbench -c 50 -t 100 -s 10 bench' with a power
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:42:50 +0200,
Ben-Nes Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what about mirroring only ? raid 1 ?
>
> I always thought that raid 1 is the fastest, am I true ?
If you have more than two disks than mirroring plus striping can be faster.
---(end of
nal Message-
>From: Scott Chapman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 21:38
>To: scott.marlowe; Michael Teter
>Cc: postgresql
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS
>
>
>On Friday 24 October 2003 16:23, scott.marlowe wrote:
>> Right, but NONE of t
On Friday 24 October 2003 16:23, scott.marlowe wrote:
> Right, but NONE of the benchmarks I've seen have been with IDE drives with
> their cache disabled, which is the only way to make them reliable under
> postgresql should something bad happen. but thanks for the benchmarks,
> I'll look them ove
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Michael Teter wrote:
> Here are some recent benchmarks on different Linux filesystems. As with
> any benchmarks, take what you will from the numbers.
>
> Note the Summary section, and then the detailed benchmark numbers (if
> you have a stomach for huge tables of pure numb
Peter Childs wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
A fast HD with a good RAID controller. Subject to budget, SCSI are beter buy
than IDE. So does hardware SCSI RAID.
I hate asking this again. But WHY?
OK.. There are only few SCSI disks that I have handled so take it with grain o
Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
But still the greatest question is what FS to put on ?
I heard Reiesref can handle small files very quickly.
Switching from ext3 to reiserfs for our name servers reduced the time
taken to load 110,000 zones from 45 minutes to 5 minutes.
However for a database, I don't thi
Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Burrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
But still the greatest question is what FS to put on ?
I heard Reiesref can handle small files very quickly.
Switching from ext3 to reiserfs for our name servers reduced the time
- Original Message -
From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ben-Nes Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Nick Burrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "postgresql"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 3:06 P
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Its worth checking - isn't it ?
>
> I appeciate that you may have performed such tests previously - but as
> hardware and software evolve its often worth repeating such tests (goes
> away to do the suggested one tonight).
>
> Note that I am not trying to argue away the is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Ellis) wrote:
> Some of their (3Ware's) larger cards allow you to attach up to 12 IDE
> disks to the card as well as giving you hot swap capability.
This is all well and good, but may not sufficiently cover over the
Vital Problem with IDE drives, namely that they are lik
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
> scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> >
> >OK, but here's the real test. As the postgres user, run 'pgbench -i',
> >then after that runs, run 'pgbench -c 50 -t 100'. While it's running
> >and settled (pg aux|grep postgres|wc -l should show a number of ~54
Its worth checking - isn't it ?
I appeciate that you may have performed such tests previously - but as
hardware and software evolve its often worth repeating such tests (goes
away to do the suggested one tonight).
Note that I am not trying to argue away the issue about write caching -
it *has*
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > I believe that 3ware have a non blocking implementation of ATA RAID -
> > I intend to sell the Promise and obtain a 3ware in the next month of
> > so and test this out.
>
>
> I use 3Ware exclusively for my ATA-RAID solutions. The nice thing abo
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I should have said that I was using Freebsd 4.8 with write caching off.
write caching *on* - I got myself confused about what the value "1"
means
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:56:52 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
>Note that even including the card, this is a very cheap setup.
>
Yes, this is the single advantage of IDE vs SCSI. If the price of the storage system
is the *only* consideration, IDE is the
t; - Original Message -
> From: "Markus Wollny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS
>
>
> > Theory vs. real life. In Theory,
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 11:26, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> (I have not gotten around to testing random read and writes, but if
> anybody is interested I can test this and supply figures)
Can you compare ogbench results for the RAID and single IDE disks? It would be
great if you could turn off write
1, 2003 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS
> Theory vs. real life. In Theory, RAID5 is faster because less
> data have
> to be written to disk. But it's true, many RAID5 controllers
> don't have
> enough CPU power.
I think it might not be just CPU-power of the cont
> Theory vs. real life. In Theory, RAID5 is faster because less
> data have
> to be written to disk. But it's true, many RAID5 controllers
> don't have
> enough CPU power.
I think it might not be just CPU-power of the controller. For RAID0+1
you just have two disc-I/O per write-access: writing t
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Markus Wollny wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > Von: Shridhar Daithankar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 08:08
> > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS
&
Hi!
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Shridhar Daithankar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 08:08
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS
> Can you compare ogbench results for the RAID and single IDE
> disks?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 08:09:34AM -0400 I heard the voice of
Jeff, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> insured shipping. But yeah, new scsi is quite expensive, but it can be
> worth it... IMHO scsi is to be used in a raid, not alone. No one disk
> can saturate the bw offered. (both ide and scsi).
T
Some sort of ATA Raid is probably worth considering -
e.g. I am experimenting with a system using 2 ATA-66 Seagates + 1
Promise TX2000
The disks themselves give fairly poor performance when attached to the
std IDE channels :
sequential write 15Mb/s
sequential read 20Mb/s
But attached to the Pr
Ben-Nes Michael writes:
> 1. What is the preferred FS to go with ? EXT3, Reiseref, JFS, XFS ? ( speed,
> efficiency )
PostgreSQL might work better on "simple" file systems, so you avoid making
the head run all over the place for writing its own log and the PostgreSQL
log. Some have even suggeste
Hi Ben,
You asked so here's my take on the subject, but I've gotta say that you
can't go far wrong with reading Bruce Momjian's paper at:
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/momjian/hw_performance/
But with that aside.
1. Unless your doing major league DB stuff, the FS should make more
than m
nal Message-
> >From: Ben-Nes Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 04:48
> >To: postgresql
> >Subject: [GENERAL] Recomended FS
> >
> >
> >Hi
> >
> >I'm upgrading the DB sever hardware and also the Linux
On Monday 20 October 2003 10:28 am, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Peter Childs wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > A fast HD with a good RAID controller. Subject to budget, SCSI
> > > are beter buy than IDE. So does hardware SCSI RAID.
> >
> > I hate a
37 matches
Mail list logo
