From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Richard Neill <rn214(at)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SSD + RAID |
Date: | 2009-11-21 14:25:03 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150911210625u293d9969gfb753d6d18815036@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Richard Neill wrote:
>>
>> The key issue for short,fast transactions seems to be
>> how fast an fdatasync() call can run, forcing the commit to disk, and
>> allowing the transaction to return to userspace.
>> Attached is a short C program which may be of use.
>
> Right. I call this the "commit rate" of the storage, and on traditional
> spinning disks it's slightly below the rotation speed of the media (i.e.
> 7200RPM = 120 commits/second). If you've got a battery-backed cache in
> front of standard disks, you can easily clear 10K commits/second.
...until you overflow the cache. battery backed cache does not break
the laws of physics...it just provides a higher burst rate (plus what
ever advantages can be gained by peeking into the write queue and
re-arranging/grouping. I learned the hard way that how your raid
controller behaves in overflow situations can cause catastrophic
performance degradations...
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | afancy | 2009-11-21 22:56:51 | Performance degrade running on multicore computer |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-11-21 00:27:36 | Re: SSD + RAID |