Hi,
Il giorno 11/apr/08, alle ore 20:03, Craig Ringer ha scritto:
Speaking of I/O performance with PostgreSQL, has anybody here done
any testing to compare results with LVM to results with the same
filesystem on a conventionally partitioned or raw volume? I'd
probably use LVM even at a
* Jeff:
Using 4 of these with a dataset of about 30GB across a few files
(Machine has 8GB mem) I went from around 100 io/sec to 330 changing to
noop. Quite an improvement. If you have a decent controller CFQ is
not what you want. I tried deadline as well and it was a touch
slower. The
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jeff:
Using 4 of these with a dataset of about 30GB across a few files
(Machine has 8GB mem) I went from around 100 io/sec to 330 changing to
noop. Quite an improvement. If you have a decent controller CFQ is
not what you want. I tried
Gregory Stark wrote:
After some time of trial and error we found that changing the I/O scheduling
algorithm to deadline improved I/O performance by a factor 4 (!) for
this specific load test.
What was the algorithm before?
The default algorithm, CFQ I think it is.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
This refers to the performance problem reported in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2008-04/msg00052.php
After some time of trial and error we found that changing the I/O scheduling
algorithm to deadline improved I/O performance by a factor 4 (!) for
this specific load test.
It
Albe Laurenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This refers to the performance problem reported in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2008-04/msg00052.php
After some time of trial and error we found that changing the I/O scheduling
algorithm to deadline improved I/O performance by a
On Apr 11, 2008, at 7:22 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
After some time of trial and error we found that changing the I/O
scheduling
algorithm to deadline improved I/O performance by a factor 4 (!) for
this specific load test.
I was inspired once again to look into this - as I'm recently hitting
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Jeff wrote:
Using 4 of these with a dataset of about 30GB across a few files (Machine has
8GB mem) I went from around 100 io/sec to 330 changing to noop. Quite an
improvement. If you have a decent controller CFQ is not what you want. I
tried deadline as well and it
Matthew wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Jeff wrote:
Using 4 of these with a dataset of about 30GB across a few files
(Machine has 8GB mem) I went from around 100 io/sec to 330 changing to
noop. Quite an improvement. If you have a decent controller CFQ is
not what you want. I tried deadline
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Craig Ringer wrote:
Speaking of I/O performance with PostgreSQL, has anybody here done any
testing to compare results with LVM to results with the same filesystem on a
conventionally partitioned or raw volume?
There was some chatter on this topic last year; a quick
10 matches
Mail list logo
