Hello,
> Once we ramped up production traffic on the machines, PostgreSQL
> pretty much died under the load and could never get to a steady state.
> I think this had something to do with the PG backends not having
> enough I/O bandwidth (due to CFQ) to put data into cache fast enough.
> This wen
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Rosser Schwarz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Glyn Astill wrote:
>> I'm wondering (and this may be a can of worms) what peoples opinions are on
>> these schedulers? I'm going to have to do some real world testing myself
>> with postgresql too, but ini
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Glyn Astill wrote:
> I'm wondering (and this may be a can of worms) what peoples opinions are on
> these schedulers? I'm going to have to do some real world testing myself
> with postgresql too, but initially was thinking of switching from our current
> CFQ bac
Dan Harris wrote:
> Just another anecdote, I found that the deadline scheduler
> performed the best for me. I don't have the benchmarks anymore
> but deadline vs cfq was dramatically faster for my tests. I
> posted this to the list years ago and others announced similar
> experiences. Noop wa
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Dan Harris wrote:
> Just another anecdote, I found that the deadline scheduler performed the
> best for me. I don't have the benchmarks anymore but deadline vs cfq was
> dramatically faster for my tests. I posted this to the list years ago and
> others announced
On 3/4/11 11:03 AM, Wayne Conrad wrote:
On 03/04/11 10:34, Glyn Astill wrote:
> I'm wondering (and this may be a can of worms) what peoples opinions
are on these schedulers?
When testing our new DB box just last month, we saw a big improvement
in bonnie++ random I/O rates when using the noop
On 03/04/11 10:34, Glyn Astill wrote:
> I'm wondering (and this may be a can of worms) what peoples opinions
are on these schedulers?
When testing our new DB box just last month, we saw a big improvement in
bonnie++ random I/O rates when using the noop scheduler instead of cfq
(or any other).
Hi Guys,
I'm in the process of setting up some new hardware and am just doing some basic
disk performance testing with bonnie++ to start with.
I'm seeing a massive difference on the random seeks test, with CFQ not
performing very well as far as I can see. The thing is I didn't see this sort
o
