| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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/
| 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 |