Re: Suggestions for a HBA controller (6 x SSDs + madam RAID10)

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pietro Pugni <pietro(dot)pugni(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Wes Vaske (wvaske)" <wvaske(at)micron(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for a HBA controller (6 x SSDs + madam RAID10)
Date: 2017-03-03 15:03:04
Message-ID: CAHyXU0w7sGzk1GXTz3-ew1DTGY8fZ-vAQ4E0FJPG1MyG4CKkZw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Pietro Pugni <pietro(dot)pugni(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The HBA provided slightly better performance without removing the expander
> and even more slightly faster after removing the expander, but then I tried
> increasing numjob from 1 to 16 (tried also 12, 18, 20, 24 and 32 but found
> 16 to get higher iops) and the benchmarks returned expected results. I guess
> how this relates with Postgres.. probably effective_io_concurrency, as
> suggested by Merlin Moncure, should be the counterpart of numjob in fio?

Kind of. effective_io_concurrency allows the database to send >1
filesystem commands to the hardware from a single process. Sadly,
only certain classes of query can currently leverage this factility --
as you can see, it's a huge optimization.

merlin

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-03-03 15:19:48 Re: Performance issue in PostgreSQL server...
Previous Message Dinesh Chandra 12108 2017-03-03 12:44:07 Re: Performance issue in PostgreSQL server...