From: | "Mikael Carneholm" <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Ron Peacetree" <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RAID stripe size question |
Date: | 2006-07-18 13:34:07 |
Message-ID: | 7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B4E4C31@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> This is a relatively low end HBA with 1 4Gb FC on it. Max sustained
IO on it is going to be ~320MBps. Or ~ enough for an 8 HD RAID 10 set
made of 75MBps ASTR HD's.
Looking at http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product.asp?sku=2260908&extended=1,
I notice that the controller has a Ultra160 SCSI interface which implies
that the theoretical max throughput is 160Mb/s. Ouch.
However, what's more important is the seeks/s - ~530/s on a 28 disk
array is quite lousy compared to the 1400/s on a 12 x 15Kdisk array as
mentioned by Mark here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-07/msg00170.php.
Could be the disk RPM (10K vs 15K) that makes the difference here...
I will test another stripe size (128K) for the DATA lun (28 disks) to
see what difference that makes, I think I read somewhere that linux
flushes blocks of 128K at a time, so it might be worth evaluating.
/Mikael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ioana Danes | 2006-07-18 16:02:53 | Re: Query plan issue when upgrading to postgres 8.14 (from |
Previous Message | Ron Peacetree | 2006-07-18 12:32:35 | Re: RAID stripe size question |