| From: | Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: sniff test on some PG 8.4 numbers |
| Date: | 2013-03-06 02:13:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAKuK5J2AREPPtagxXgEuHx--j_JUvMQ9Exp_3jk+FY=xndMUkA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Do these basically sniff right?
>
> Well, the read test seems reasonable. I'm impressed by the speed of the
> write test ... how large is the raid card cache?
>
> And why 8.4? Can you try 9.2?
8.4 because it's what I've got, basically. I might be able to try 9.2
later, but I'm targeting 8.4 right now.
512MB of memory on the card.
>> (NOTE: with barriers off, I get a slight increase - 10% - in the
>> read-write test, and a larger *decrease* - 15% - with the read-only
>> test @ 400. No change @ 100)
>
> Oh, interesting. Can you reproduce that? I wonder what would cause
> read-only to drop without barriers ...
I'll try to test again soon.
I know that if I use writethrough instead of writeback mode the
performance nosedives.
Does anybody have suggestions for stripe size? (remember: *4* disks)
--
Jon
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jon Nelson | 2013-03-06 03:00:30 | Re: sniff test on some PG 8.4 numbers |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-03-06 01:02:07 | Re: sniff test on some PG 8.4 numbers |