Re: file system and raid performance

From: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
To: Andrej Ricnik-Bay <andrej(dot)groups(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: file system and raid performance
Date: 2008-08-07 22:08:59
Message-ID: 489B727B.6010800@mark.mielke.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
> 2008/8/8 Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
>> noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know
>> that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to
>> slow down performance?
>>
>
> Scott, I'm quite aware of what noatime does ... you didn't miss a post, but
> if you look at Mark's graphs on
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/HP_ProLiant_DL380_G5_Tuning_Guide
> they pretty much all indicate that (unless I completely misinterpret the
> meaning and purpose of the labels), independent of the file-system,
> using noatime slows read/writes down (on average)

That doesn't make sense - if noatime slows things down, then the
analysis is probably wrong.

Now, modern Linux distributions default to "relatime" - which will only
update access time if the access time is currently less than the update
time or something like this. The effect is that modern Linux
distributions do not benefit from "noatime" as much as they have in the
past. In this case, "noatime" vs default would probably be measuring %
noise.

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2008-08-07 22:12:58 Re: file system and raid performance
Previous Message Joshua Shanks 2008-08-07 22:01:53 Re: query planner not using the correct index