Re: Postgresql 9.0.6 Raid 5 or not please help.

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: tuanhoanganh <hatuan05(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: alexandre - aldeia digital <adaldeia(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgresql 9.0.6 Raid 5 or not please help.
Date: 2011-12-23 18:06:51
Message-ID: CAOR=d=0EpQiejS3NMG9-4advsL1LymRuFMsN1tqVCBQCpEwdTA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:32 AM, tuanhoanganh <hatuan05(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks for all. I change to RAID 1 and here is new pg_bench result:
>
> pgbench -h 127.0.0.1 -p 5433 -U postgres -c 10  -T 1800  -s 10 pgbench
> Scale option ignored, using pgbench_branches table count = 10
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
> scaling factor: 10
> query mode: simple
> number of clients: 10
> number of threads: 1
> duration: 1800 s
> number of transactions actually processed: 4373177
> tps = 2429.396876 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 2429.675016 (excluding connections establishing)
> Press any key to continue . . .

Note that those numbers are really only possible if your drives are
lying about fsync or you have fsync turned off or you have a battery
backed caching RAID controller. I.e. your database is likely not
crash-proof.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Igor Schtein 2011-12-23 19:27:13 How to clock the time spent for query parsing and planning?
Previous Message tuanhoanganh 2011-12-23 15:32:52 Re: Postgresql 9.0.6 Raid 5 or not please help.