From: | Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sustained inserts per sec ... ? |
Date: | 2005-04-04 14:47:34 |
Message-ID: | 33c6269f05040407471d716702@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Yup, Battery backed, cache enabled. 6 drive RAID 10, and 4 drive RAID
10, and 2xRAID 1.
It's a 3ware 9500S-8MI - not bad for $450 plus BBU.
Alex Turner
netEconomist
On Apr 1, 2005 6:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Apr 1, 2005 4:17 PM, Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> 1250/sec with record size average is 26 bytes
> >> 800/sec with record size average is 48 bytes.
> >> 250/sec with record size average is 618 bytes.
>
> > Oh - this is with a seperate transaction per command.
> > fsync is on.
>
> [ raised eyebrow... ] What kind of disk hardware is that exactly, and
> does it have write cache enabled? It's hard to believe those numbers
> if not.
>
> Write caching is fine if it's done in a battery-backed cache, which you
> can get in the higher-end hardware RAID controllers. Otherwise you're
> going to have problems whenever the power goes away unexpectedly.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannes Dorbath | 2005-04-04 15:18:24 | Re: Query Optimizer Failure / Possible Bug |
Previous Message | Steve Poe | 2005-04-04 14:39:20 | Re: How to improve db performance with $7K? |