From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL reads each 8k block - no larger blocks are used - even on sequential scans |
Date: | 2009-09-28 01:22:47 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10909271822q112d3e0eu19ebf5c7f481fb5a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=test.txt bs=8192 count=1310720 conv=fdatasync
>> 10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 169.482 s, 63.4 MB/s
>>
>> dd if=test.txt of=/dev/null bs=8192
>> 10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 86.4457 s, 124 MB/s
>
> These look slow. RAID5 isn't going to be amazing, but it should be
> better than this. I'd spend some more time optimizing your system
> config before worrying about PG. If I can read at 90MB/s from a single
> stock SATA drive you should be almost hitting 200MB/s with this, or
> 300MB/s in a RAID1 across three drives.
They are slow, they are not atypical for RAID5; especially the slow
writes with SW RAID-5 are typical.
I'd try a simple test on a 2 or 3 disk RAID-0 for testing purposes
only to see how much faster a RAID-10 array of n*2 disks could be.
The increase in random write performance for RAID-10 will be even more
noticeable.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Grant Maxwell | 2009-09-28 01:27:54 | problem with array query |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-09-28 01:13:08 | Re: generic modelling of data models; enforcing constraints dynamically... |