Re: SCSI vs SATA

From: Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Cc: jason(at)ohloh(dot)net, Geoff Tolley <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: 2007-04-05 15:21:56
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0704050819100.9190@discord.home.frostconsultingllc.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:

>> I've read some recent contrary advice. Specifically advising the
>> sharing of all files (pg_xlogs, indices, etc..) on a huge raid array
>> and letting the drives load balance by brute force.
>
> The other, at first almost counter-intuitive result was that putting
> pg_xlog on a different partition on the same array (i.e. one big
> physical partition broken up into multiple logical ones) because the OS
> overhead of writing all the data to one file system caused performance
> issues. Can't remember who reported the performance increase of the top
> of my head.

I noticed this behavior on the last Areca based 8 disk Raptor system I built.
Putting pg_xlog on a separate partition on the same logical volume was faster
than putting it on the large volume. It was also faster to have 8xRAID10 for
OS+data+pg_xlog vs 6xRAID10 for data and 2xRAID1 for pg_xlog+OS. Your
workload may vary, but it's definitely worth testing. The system in question
had 1GB BBU.

--
Jeff Frost, Owner <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Deucher 2007-04-05 15:34:57 Re: postgres 7.4 vs 8.x redux: query plans
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2007-04-05 15:19:30 Re: SCSI vs SATA