From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com> |
Cc: | Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RAID stripe size question |
Date: | 2006-07-18 00:22:29 |
Message-ID: | 44BC29C5.5090607@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
>
> Btw, here's the bonnie++ results from two different array sets (10+18,
> 4+24) on the MSA1500:
>
>
> LUN: DATA, 24 disks, stripe size 64K
> -------------------------------------
> Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
> -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
> --Seeks--
> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> sesell01 32G 59443 97 118515 39 25023 5 30926 49 60835 6
> 531.8 1
> ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
> -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> 16 2499 90 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 2817 99 +++++ +++
> 10971 100
>
It might be interesting to see if 128K or 256K stripe size gives better
sequential throughput, while still leaving the random performance ok.
Having said that, the seeks/s figure of 531 not that great - for
instance I've seen a 12 disk (15K SCSI) system report about 1400 seeks/s
in this test.
Sorry if you mentioned this already - but what OS and filesystem are you
using? (if Linux and ext3, it might be worth experimenting with xfs or jfs).
Cheers
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Peacetree | 2006-07-18 03:07:55 | Re: RAID stripe size question |
Previous Message | Mikael Carneholm | 2006-07-17 21:16:51 | Re: RAID stripe size question |