Luke,I'll try it, but you're right, it should not matter. The two systems are:HP DL385 (dual Opteron 265 I believe) 8GB of RAM, two internal RAID1 U320 10KSun W2100z (dual Opteron 245 I believe) 4GB of RAM, 1 U320 10K drive with LSI MegaRAID 2X 128M driving two external 4-disc arrays U320 10K drive
Well, that's of course really hard to tell. From personal experience in
a read-mostly environment, the subtop woodcrest 5150 (2.6Ghz)
outperforms the top dempsey 5080 (3.7Ghz, in the same system) by quite a
nice margin. But that dempsey already has the faster FB-Dimm memory and
a much wider FSB
Title: Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and
Steve,
One thing here is that “wal_sync_method” should be set to “fdatasync” and not “fsync”. In fact, the default is fdatasync, but because you have uncommented the standard line in the file, it is changed to “fsync”, which is a l
We've been doing some research in this area (the new Woodcrest from
Intel, the Opterons from Dell, and SAS).
In a nutshell, here's what I'm aware of:
Dell does provide a 15 disk external SAS enclosure- the performance
numbers they claim look pretty good (of course, go figure) and as far as
I can
Thanks Arjen for your reply, this is definitely something to consider. I
think in our case, we are not too concerned with the tech image as much as if
the machine will allow us to scale the loads we need. I'm not sure if we
should worry so much about the IO bandwidth as we are not even close to
sat
Hi Kenji,
I'm not sure what you mean by 'something newer'? The intel
woodcrest-cpu's are brand-new compared to the amd opterons. But if you
need a 4-cpu config (I take it you want 8-cores in that case), Dell
doesn't offer much. Whether something new will come, I don't know. I'm
not sure when
Thanks Arjen,
I have unlimited rack space if I really need it. Is serial/SAS really the
better route to go than SCSI these days? I'm so used to ordering SCSI that
I've been out of the loop with new disk enclosures and disk tech. I been
trying to price out a HP DL585, but those are considerably m
Luke, ISTM that the main performance issue for xlog is going to be the rate at
which fdatasync operations complete, and the stripe size shouldn't hurtthat.I thought so. However, I've also tried running the PGDATA off of the RAID1 as a test and it is poor.
What are your postgresql.conf settings for
Steve,
On 8/18/06 10:39 AM, "Steve Poe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope. it is only a RAID1 for the 2 internal discs connected to the SmartArray
> 6i. This is where I *had* the pg_xlog located when the performance was very
> poor. Also, I just found out the default stripe size is 128k. Would th
Regarding the DL585 etc boxes from HP, they seem to require external JBOD or
SCSI/SAS enclosures. Does anyone have any particular preference on how these
units should be configured or speced? I'm guessing I'll use the onboard SCSI
RAID 1 with the onboard drives for the OS, but will need 2 externa
Luke,Nope. it is only a RAID1 for the 2 internal discs connected to the SmartArray 6i. This is where I *had* the pg_xlog located when the performance was very poor. Also, I just found out the default stripe size is 128k. Would this be a problem for pg_xlog?
The 6-disc RAID10 you speak of is on the
That's about what I was getting for a 2 disk RAID 0 setup on a PE 2950.
Here's bonnie++ numbers for the RAID10x4 and RAID0x2, unfortunately I
only have the 1.93 numbers since this was before I got the advice to run
with the earlier version of bonnie and larger file sizes, so I don't
know how meanin
Steve,
If this is an internal RAID1 on two disks, it looks great.
Based on the random seeks though (578 seeks/sec), it looks like maybe it's 6
disks in a RAID10?
- Luke
On 8/16/06 7:10 PM, "Steve Poe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> I wanted to follow-up on bonnie results for the
On 8/18/06, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > First off - very few third party tools support debian. Debian is
> a
> > sure fire way to have an unsupported system. Use RedHat or SuSe
> > (flame me all you want, it doesn't make it less true).
>
> *cough* BS *cough*
>
> Linux is Linu
> There is 64MB on the 6i and 192MB on the 642 controller. I wish the
> controllers had a "wrieback" enable option like the LSI MegaRAID
> adapters have. I have tried splitting the cache accelerator 25/75
> 75/25 0/100 100/0 but the results really did not improve.
They have a writeback option, but
> > First off - very few third party tools support debian. Debian is
> a
> > sure fire way to have an unsupported system. Use RedHat or SuSe
> > (flame me all you want, it doesn't make it less true).
>
> *cough* BS *cough*
>
> Linux is Linux. It doesn't matter what trademark you put on top of
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
