On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:09:38AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
> >I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from
> >a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well.
>
> If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate
> p
Jim,I have to say Michael is onto something here to my surprise. I partitioned the RAID10 on the SmartArray 642 adapter into two parts, PGDATA formatted with XFS and pg_xlog as ext2. Performance jumped up to median of 98 TPS. I could reproduce the similar result with the LSI MegaRAID 2X adapter as
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 10:38:41AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Got any data to back that up?
yes. that I'm willing to dig out? no. :)
The problem with seperate partitions is that it means more head movement
for the drives. If it's all one partition the pg_xlog data will tend to
be interspersed
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:51:09AM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I have to say Michael is onto something here to my surprise. I partitioned
> the RAID10 on the SmartArray 642 adapter into two parts, PGDATA formatted
> with XFS and pg_xlog as ext2. Performance jumped up to median of 98 TPS. I
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 12:05:46PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Wow, interesting. IIRC, XFS is lower performing than ext3,
For xlog, maybe. For data, no. Both are definately slower than ext2 for
xlog, which is another reason to have xlog on a small filesystem which
doesn't need metadata journal
On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Bucky Jordan wrote:Here’s the hardware:2xDual Core 3.0 Ghz CPU (Xeon 5160- 1333Mhz FSB, 4 MB shared cache per socket)8 GB RAM (DDR2, fully buffered, Dual Ranked, 667 Mhz)6x300 10k RPM SAS drivesPerc 5i w/256 MB battery backed cacheIs the PERC 5/i dual channel? If so, a
...
Is the PERC 5/i dual channel? If so, are 1/2 the drives on one channel and the
other half on the other channel? I find this helps RAID10 performance when the
mirrored pairs are on separate channels.
...
With the SAS controller (PERC 5/i), every drive gets it's own 3 GB/s port.
...
Your t
On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:56 PM, Bucky Jordan wrote:
Seems to me the PERC5 has issues with layered raid (10, 50) as
others have suggested on this list is a common problem with lower
end raid cards. For now, I'm going with the RAID 5 option, however
if I have time, I would like to test having t
...
Of more interest would be a test which involved large files with lots
of seeks all around (something like bonnie++ should do that).
...
Here's the bonnie++ numbers for the RAID 5 x 6 disks. I believe this was
with write-through and 64k striping. I plan to run a few others with
different bloc
Bucky,
I see you are running bonnie++ version 1.93c. The numbers it reports are
very different from version 1.03a, which is the one everyone runs - can you
post your 1.03a numbers from bonnie++?
- Luke
On 8/14/06 4:38 PM, "Bucky Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> Of more interest would
10 matches
Mail list logo
