Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine?

From: "Steve Wolfe" <nw(at)codon(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine?
Date: 2002-11-15 00:38:13
Message-ID: 006d01c28c3f$6a889740$d281f6cc@WEASEL
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-performance

> fsync is enabled by default. fsync flushes disk buffers after every
> write. Turning it off lets the OS flush buffers at its leisure.
setting
> fsync=false will often double the write performance and since writes are
> running faster, there's more bandwidth for the reads as well, so
> everything goes faster.

"doubling performance" is very conservative, I've seen it give more than
a tenfold increase in performance on large insert/update batches. Of
course, the exact figure depends on a lot of hardware and OS factors.

> Definitely look at putting your data onto a Ultra160 SCSI 15krpm RAID1
> set. My dual 80 Gig Ultra100 IDEs can get about 30 Megs a second in a
> RAID1 for raw reads under bonnie++, while my pair of Ultra80 10krpm 18
gig
> scsis can get about 48 Megs a second raw read.

If you trust the hardware, disabling fsync and using copious quantities
of cache/buffer can almost eliminate actual disk access. My DB machine
will quickly blip the lights on the RAID array once a minute or so, but
that's about it. All of the actual work is happening from RAM. Of
course, with obscenely large data sets, that becomes difficult to achieve.

steve

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Barry Lind 2002-11-15 01:15:33 Re: Solved, and a bug found! Re: JDBC question: Creating
Previous Message Steve Wolfe 2002-11-15 00:33:35 Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine?

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message pginfo 2002-11-15 06:08:42 Re: Sort time
Previous Message Laurette Cisneros 2002-11-15 00:34:53 Re: digest