From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Henrik <henke(at)mac(dot)se> |
Cc: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>, david(at)lang(dot)hm, Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Filesystem benchmarking for pg 8.3.3 server |
Date: | 2008-08-16 18:49:05 |
Message-ID: | 04470CDD-146A-4725-BBC5-22E3271B958A@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Aug 13, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Henrik wrote:
>> Additionally, you need to be careful of what size writes you're
>> using. If you're doing random writes that perfectly align with the
>> raid stripe size, you'll see virtually no RAID5 overhead, and
>> you'll get the performance of N-1 drives, as opposed to RAID10
>> giving you N/2.
> But it still needs to do 2 reads and 2 writes for every write,
> correct?
If you are completely over-writing an entire stripe, there's no
reason to read the existing data; you would just calculate the parity
information from the new data. Any good controller should take that
approach.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Decibel! | 2008-08-16 19:19:03 | Re: Optimizing a VIEW |
Previous Message | Decibel! | 2008-08-16 18:45:53 | Re: Experiences storing binary in Postgres |