Re: RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers (was: Performance increase with elevator=deadline)

From: Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>
To: Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers (was: Performance increase with elevator=deadline)
Date: 2008-05-06 12:26:03
Message-ID: 11417349-DBA5-48AA-AE6B-0A376235D421@torgo.978.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


On May 5, 2008, at 7:33 PM, Craig James wrote:

> I had the opportunity to do more testing on another new server to
> see whether the kernel's I/O scheduling makes any difference.
> Conclusion: On a battery-backed RAID 10 system, the kernel's I/O
> scheduling algorithm has no effect. This makes sense, since a
> battery-backed cache will supercede any I/O rescheduling that the
> kernel tries to do.
>

this goes against my real world experience here.

> pgbench -i -s 20 -U test
> pgbench -c 10 -t 50000 -v -U test
>

You should use a sample size of 2x ram to get a more realistic number,
or try out my pgiosim tool on pgfoundry which "sort of" simulates an
index scan. I posted numbers from that a month or two ago here.

--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
http://www.dellsmartexitin.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin 2008-05-06 13:22:02 Re: need to speed up query
Previous Message Frank van Vugt 2008-05-06 11:55:52 Re: plan difference between set-returning function with ROWS within IN() and a plain join