From: | Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RAID stripe size question |
Date: | 2006-07-17 11:40:36 |
Message-ID: | 44BB7734.8080801@logix-tt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi, Mikael,
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> This is something I'd also would like to test, as a common best-practice
> these days is to go for a SAME (stripe all, mirror everything) setup.
> From a development perspective it's easier to use SAME as the developers
> won't have to think about physical location for new tables/indices, so
> if there's no performance penalty with SAME I'll gladly keep it that
> way.
Usually, it's not the developers task to care about that, but the DBAs
responsibility.
>> And look into the commit_delay/commit_siblings settings, they allow you
> to deal latency for throughput (means a little more latency per
> transaction, but much more transactions per second throughput for the
> whole system.)
>
> In a previous test, using cd=5000 and cs=20 increased transaction
> throughput by ~20% so I'll definitely fiddle with that in the coming
> tests as well.
How many parallel transactions do you have?
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS
Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mikael Carneholm | 2006-07-17 12:52:28 | Re: RAID stripe size question |
Previous Message | Mikael Carneholm | 2006-07-17 11:33:55 | Re: RAID stripe size question |