From: | Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jacques Caron <jc(at)directinfos(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to improve db performance with $7K? |
Date: | 2005-04-18 18:21:04 |
Message-ID: | 33c6269f0504181121385a1f0a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
So I wonder if one could take this stripe size thing further and say
that a larger stripe size is more likely to result in requests getting
served parallized across disks which would lead to increased
performance?
Again, thanks to all people on this list, I know that I have learnt a
_hell_ of alot since subscribing.
Alex Turner
netEconomist
On 4/18/05, Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Ok - well - I am partially wrong...
>
> If you're stripe size is 64Kb, and you are reading 256k worth of data,
> it will be spread across four drives, so you will need to read from
> four devices to get your 256k of data (RAID 0 or 5 or 10), but if you
> are only reading 64kb of data, I guess you would only need to read
> from one disk.
>
> So my assertion that adding more drives doesn't help is pretty
> wrong... particularly with OLTP because it's always dealing with
> blocks that are smaller that the stripe size.
>
> Alex Turner
> netEconomist
>
> On 4/18/05, Jacques Caron <jc(at)directinfos(dot)com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > At 18:56 18/04/2005, Alex Turner wrote:
> > >All drives are required to fill every request in all RAID levels
> >
> > No, this is definitely wrong. In many cases, most drives don't actually
> > have the data requested, how could they handle the request?
> >
> > When reading one random sector, only *one* drive out of N is ever used to
> > service any given request, be it RAID 0, 1, 0+1, 1+0 or 5.
> >
> > When writing:
> > - in RAID 0, 1 drive
> > - in RAID 1, RAID 0+1 or 1+0, 2 drives
> > - in RAID 5, you need to read on all drives and write on 2.
> >
> > Otherwise, what would be the point of RAID 0, 0+1 or 1+0?
> >
> > Jacques.
> >
> >
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-04-18 18:24:14 | Re: How to improve db performance with $7K? |
Previous Message | Alex Turner | 2005-04-18 18:19:36 | Re: How to improve db performance with $7K? |