From: | Miguel <mmiranda(at)123(dot)com(dot)sv> |
---|---|
To: | Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
Cc: | Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & Adaptec |
Date: | 2006-03-20 20:52:45 |
Message-ID: | 441F161D.7010502@123.com.sv |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Kenji Morishige wrote:
>
>> In summary, my questions:
>>
>> 1. Would running PG on FreeBSD 5.x or 6.x or Linux improve performance?
>
>
> FreeBSD 6.x will definitely get you improvements. Many speedup
> improvements have been made to both the generic disk layer and the
> specific drivers. However, the current best of breed RAID controller
> is the LSI 320-x (I use 320-2X). I have one box into which this
> card will not fit (Thanks Sun, for making a box with only low-profile
> slots!) so I use an Adaptec 2230SLP card in it. Testing shows it is
> about 80% speed of a LSI 320-2x on sequential workload (load DB, run
> some queries, rebuild indexes, etc.)
>
> If you do put on FreeBSD 6, I'd love to see the output of "diskinfo -
> v -t" on your RAID volume(s).
>
Not directly related ...
i have a HP dl380 g3 with array 5i controlled (1+0), these are my results
shiva2# /usr/sbin/diskinfo -v -t /dev/da2s1d
/dev/da2s1d
512 # sectorsize
218513555456 # mediasize in bytes (204G)
426784288 # mediasize in sectors
52301 # Cylinders according to firmware.
255 # Heads according to firmware.
32 # Sectors according to firmware.
Seek times:
Full stroke: 250 iter in 1.138232 sec = 4.553 msec
Half stroke: 250 iter in 1.084474 sec = 4.338 msec
Quarter stroke: 500 iter in 1.690313 sec = 3.381 msec
Short forward: 400 iter in 0.752646 sec = 1.882 msec
Short backward: 400 iter in 1.306270 sec = 3.266 msec
Seq outer: 2048 iter in 0.766676 sec = 0.374 msec
Seq inner: 2048 iter in 0.803759 sec = 0.392 msec
Transfer rates:
outside: 102400 kbytes in 2.075984 sec = 49326 kbytes/sec
middle: 102400 kbytes in 2.100510 sec = 48750 kbytes/sec
inside: 102400 kbytes in 2.042313 sec = 50139 kbytes/sec
is this good enough?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-03-20 20:59:13 | Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & |
Previous Message | Alex Hayward | 2006-03-20 19:46:13 | Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & |