On 7/17/06, Ron Peacetree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-Original Message->From: Mikael Carneholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Sent: Jul 17, 2006 5:16 PM>To: Ron Peacetree <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>Subject: RE: [PERFORM] RAID stripe size question>>>15Krpm HDs will have ave
-Original Message-
>From: Mikael Carneholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 17, 2006 5:16 PM
>To: Ron Peacetree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>Subject: RE: [PERFORM] RAID stripe size question
>
>>15Krpm HDs will have average access times of 5-6ms. 10Krpm ones of 7-8m
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
Btw, here's the bonnie++ results from two different array sets (10+18,
4+24) on the MSA1500:
LUN: DATA, 24 disks, stripe size 64K
-
Version 1.03 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input-
--Random-
-P
>Unless I'm missing something, the only FC or SCSI HDs of ~147GB capacity are
>15K, not 10K.
In the spec we got from HP, they are listed as model 286716-B22
(http://www.dealtime.com/xPF-Compaq_HP_146_8_GB_286716_B22) which seems to run
at 10K. Don't know how old those are, but that's what we go
Just turn on autovacuuming on your 8.1 database. You can tune the vacuum and autovacuum parameters to minimize the impact to your system. This is the optimal route to take since PG will maintain the tables for you as needed.
HTH,ChrisOn 7/15/06, Gabriele Turchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Il gior
On 7/17/06, Mikael Carneholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is something I'd also would like to test, as a common>> best-practice these days is to go for a SAME (stripe all, mirroreverything) setup.>> From a development perspective it's easier to use SAME as the
>> developers won't have to thin
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:40:30AM -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> Unless I'm missing something, the only FC or SCSI HDs of ~147GB capacity are
> 15K, not 10K.
> (unless they are old?)
There are still 146GB SCSI 1rpm disks being sold here, at least.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse
>From: Mikael Carneholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 16, 2006 6:52 PM
>To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>Subject: [PERFORM] RAID stripe size question
>
>I have finally gotten my hands on the MSA1500 that we ordered some time
>ago. It has 28 x 10K 146Gb drives,
>
Unless I'm missing something,
>> This is something I'd also would like to test, as a common
>> best-practice these days is to go for a SAME (stripe all, mirror
everything) setup.
>> From a development perspective it's easier to use SAME as the
>> developers won't have to think about physical location for new
>> tables/indice
Hi, Mikael,
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> This is something I'd also would like to test, as a common best-practice
> these days is to go for a SAME (stripe all, mirror everything) setup.
> From a development perspective it's easier to use SAME as the developers
> won't have to think about physical lo
>I think the main difference is that the WAL activity is mostly linear,
where the normal data activity is rather random access.
That was what I was expecting, and after reading
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/concepts/perfStripe-c.html I
figured that a different stripe size for the WAL s
Hi, Mikael,
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> An 0+1 array of 4 disks *could* be enough, but I'm still unsure how WAL
> activity correlates to "normal data" activity (is it 1:1, 1:2, 1:4,
> ...?)
I think the main difference is that the WAL activity is mostly linear,
where the normal data activity is rat
Yeah, it seems to be a waste of disk space (spindles as well?). I was
unsure how much activity the WAL disks would have compared to the data
disks, so I created an array from 10 disks as the application is very
write intense (many spindles / high throughput is crucial). I guess that
a mirror of two
13 matches
Mail list logo
