From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Anton Belyaev <anton(dot)belyaev(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Huge iowait during checkpoint finish |
Date: | 2010-01-11 23:01:00 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d11001111501w723256eel4b39f99e8a5e1131@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> If you can shoehorn one more drive, you could run RAID-10 and get much
> better performance.
>
>
> And throwing drives at the problem may not help. I've see a system with a
> 48 disk software RAID-10 that only got 100 TPS when running a commit-heavy
> test, because it didn't have any way to cache writes usefully for that
> purpose.
A 4 disk RAID-10 will be about 4 to 8 times faster than a RAID-5 of 3
disks. It won't be as fast as a good sized RAID-10 with HW caching,
but it would be a big improvement.
> If the old system had a write caching card, and the new one doesn't, that's
> certainly your most likely suspect for the source of the slowdown. As for
Agreed. If the new machine is limited to 3 disks, and any one is big
enough to hold the db, I'd look at a two disk mirror with a hot spare
on a HW RAID controller with battery backed chat. If they can't get a
HW RAID controller than switching to SW RAID-1 would be a positive
step.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Omar Mehmood | 2010-01-11 23:02:18 | replication from multiple "master" servers to a single read-only slave |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-01-11 21:59:11 | Re: Huge iowait during checkpoint finish |