Re: Linux I/O schedulers - CFQ & random seeks

From: Wayne Conrad <wayne(at)databill(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Linux I/O schedulers - CFQ & random seeks
Date: 2011-03-04 18:03:36
Message-ID: 4D712978.60504@databill.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 03/04/11 10:34, Glyn Astill wrote:
> I'm wondering (and this may be a can of worms) what peoples opinions
are on these schedulers?

When testing our new DB box just last month, we saw a big improvement in
bonnie++ random I/O rates when using the noop scheduler instead of cfq
(or any other). We've got RAID 10/12 on a 3ware card w/ battery-backed
cache; 7200rpm drives. Our file system is XFS with
noatime,nobarrier,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k. How much is "big?" I can't
find my notes for it, but I recall that the difference was large enough
to surprise us. We're running with noop in production right now. No
complaints.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-03-04 18:06:25 Re: Slow join on partitioned table
Previous Message Glyn Astill 2011-03-04 17:34:39 Linux I/O schedulers - CFQ & random seeks