Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

Luke,

Nope. it is only a RAID1 for the 2 internal discs connected to the
SmartArray 6i. This is where I *had* the pg_xlog located when the
performance was very poor. Also, I just found out the default stripe size is
128k. Would this be a problem for pg_xlog?

The 6-disc RAID10 you speak of is on the SmartArray 642 RAID adapter.

Steve

On 8/18/06, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> If this is an internal RAID1 on two disks, it looks great.
>
> Based on the random seeks though (578 seeks/sec), it looks like maybe it's
> 6
> disks in a RAID10?
>
> - Luke
>
>
> On 8/16/06 7:10 PM, "Steve Poe" <steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Everyone,
> >
> > I wanted to follow-up on bonnie results for the internal RAID1 which is
> > connected to the SmartArray 6i. I believe this is the problem, but I am
> > not good at interepting the results. Here's an sample of three runs:
> >
> > scsi disc
> > array ,16G,47983,67,65492,20,37214,6,73785,87,89787,6,578.2,0,16,+++++,
> > +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
> > scsi disc
> > array ,16G,54634,75,67793,21,36835,6,74190,88,89314,6,579.9,0,16,+++++,
> > +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
> > scsi disc
> > array ,16G,55056,76,66108,20,36859,6,74108,87,89559,6,585.0,0,16,+++++,
> > +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+
> >
> > This was run on the internal RAID1 on the outer portion of the discs
> > formatted at ext2.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:35 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> >>> Mike,
> >>>
> >>> On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
> >>>>> I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went
> from
> >>>>> a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate
> >>>> partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog).
> >>>
> >>> If he's doing the same thing on both systems (Sun and HP) and the HP
> >>> performance is dramatically worse despite using more disks and having
> faster
> >>> CPUs and more RAM, ISTM the problem isn't the configuration.
> >>>
> >>> Add to this the fact that the Sun machine is CPU bound while the HP is
> I/O
> >>> wait bound and I think the problem is the disk hardware or the driver
> >>> therein.
> >>
> >> I agree. The problem here looks to be the RAID controller.
> >>
> >> Steve, got access to a different RAID controller to test with?
> >>
> >> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> >> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> >> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that
> your
> >> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> >
> >
>
>
>