On May 16, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:Hi All,I tried bumping my read ahead up to 4096. Instead of having faster reads, it seems it actually slowed things down. In fact, most of the tuning suggestions I've tried have made little to no difference in the results I get from bonnie++.I've run
Hi All,
I tried bumping my read ahead up to 4096. Instead of having faster reads, it
seems it actually slowed things down. In fact, most of the tuning suggestions
I've tried have made little to no difference in the results I get from
bonnie++. I'll include a table of values in html. I'm wonderi
On May 16, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 08:04 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
>
>> My question: Is that advice just for the database drive, or should I
>> increase read ahead on the OS/WAL disk as well?
>
> Definitely the database drive, but it doesn't hurt to do both. It does
On 05/15/2013 08:04 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
My question: Is that advice just for the database drive, or should I
increase read ahead on the OS/WAL disk as well?
Definitely the database drive, but it doesn't hurt to do both. It
doesn't mention it in the book, but if you have a Debian or Ubunt
Hi all,
I've just gotten into my new database server yesterday and I've started doing
database setup and tuning.
I'm on a Rackspace Linux server with two raid arrays. Both are ext3. One is a
two disk RAID1 I plan on using for WAL and OS, the other is a four disk RAID10
I will use for the data.
