Re: seqential vs random io

From: "Anjan Dave" <adave(at)vantage(dot)com>
To: "David Parker" <dparker(at)tazznetworks(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: seqential vs random io
Date: 2005-05-23 22:35:44
Message-ID: 4BAFBB6B9CC46F41B2AD7D9F4BBAF785098A4B@vt-pe2550-001.vantage.vantage.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

I would tell him to go for the random, which is what most DBs would be by nature. What you need to understand will be the cache parameters, read/write cache amount, and stripe size, depending on your controller type and whatever it defaults to on these things.

Thanks,
Anjan

-----Original Message-----
From: David Parker [mailto:dparker(at)tazznetworks(dot)com]
Sent: Mon 5/23/2005 4:58 PM
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc:
Subject: [PERFORM] seqential vs random io


I just got a question from one our QA guys who is configuring a RAID 10 disk that is destined to hold a postgresql database. The disk configuration procedure is asking him if he wants to optimize for sequential or random access. My first thought is that random is what we would want, but then I started wondering if it's not that simple, and my knowledge of stuff at the hardware level is, well, limited.....

If it were your QA guy, what would you tell him?

- DAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Parker Tazz Networks (401) 709-5130

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mark durrant 2005-05-24 05:47:15 Select performance vs. mssql
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2005-05-23 22:32:35 Re: seqential vs random io