From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Neill <rn214(at)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SSD + RAID |
Date: | 2009-11-21 00:27:36 |
Message-ID: | 4B0733F8.10505@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Richard Neill wrote:
> The key issue for short,fast transactions seems to be
> how fast an fdatasync() call can run, forcing the commit to disk, and
> allowing the transaction to return to userspace.
> Attached is a short C program which may be of use.
Right. I call this the "commit rate" of the storage, and on traditional
spinning disks it's slightly below the rotation speed of the media (i.e.
7200RPM = 120 commits/second). If you've got a battery-backed cache
in front of standard disks, you can easily clear 10K commits/second.
I normally test that out with sysbench, because I use that for some
other tests anyway:
sysbench --test=fileio --file-fsync-freq=1 --file-num=1
--file-total-size=16384 --file-test-mode=rndwr run | grep "Requests/sec"
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-11-21 14:25:03 | Re: SSD + RAID |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-11-21 00:18:09 | Re: Postgres query completion status? |