> On 16 Dec 2014, at 14:51, Graeme B. Bell wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't understand the logic behind using drives,
>> which are best for random io, for sequent io workloads.
>
> Because they are also best for sequential IO. I get 1.3-1.4GB/second from 4
> SSDs in RAID or >500MB/s for single disk sy
>
> I don't understand the logic behind using drives,
> which are best for random io, for sequent io workloads.
Because they are also best for sequential IO. I get 1.3-1.4GB/second from 4
SSDs in RAID or >500MB/s for single disk systems, even with cheap models.
Are you getting more than that f
> Very much agree with this. Because SSD is fast doesn't make it suited for
> certain things, and a streaming sequential 100% write workload is one of
> them. I've worked with everything from local disk to high-end SAN and even
> at the high end we've always put any DB logs on spinning disk.
: [PERFORM] Tuning the configuration
On 11 Dec 2014, at 15:02, Andrea Suisani wrote:
On 12/10/2014 11:44 AM, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
2- I would like to use the two SDD to store the wal file. Do you think
it is useful or how should I use them?
I definitely would give it a try.
I don&#
From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org
on behalf of Evgeniy Shishkin
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:11 AM
To: Andrea Suisani
Cc: mfatticci...@mbigroup.it; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning the configuration
>
On 12/11/2014 01:11 PM, Evgeniy Shishkin wrote:
On 11 Dec 2014, at 15:02, Andrea Suisani wrote:
On 12/10/2014 11:44 AM, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
2- I would like to use the two SDD to store the wal file. Do you think
it is useful or how should I use them?
I definitely would give it a try.
Would you mind to explain me better why you do suggest me to use the
sas raid for wal please?
SSDs are known to shine when they have to deal with random access pattern
rather than sequential, on the other hand 10/15K rpm SAS disk is known to be
better for sequential io workloads (in general "r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/11/2014 01:11 PM, Evgeniy Shishkin wrote:
>
>> On 11 Dec 2014, at 15:02, Andrea Suisani
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/2014 11:44 AM, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
>>> 2- I would like to use the two SDD to store the wal file. Do
>>> you think it is usefu
> On 11 Dec 2014, at 15:02, Andrea Suisani wrote:
>
> On 12/10/2014 11:44 AM, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
>> 2- I would like to use the two SDD to store the wal file. Do you think
>> it is useful or how should I use them?
>
> I definitely would give it a try.
>
I don't understand the logic behi
On 12/10/2014 11:44 AM, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello.
I need to tune a postgres installation I've just made to get a better
performance. I use two identical servers with a hot replication
configuration. The two servers have the following hardware:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/10/2014 06:47 PM, Patrick Krecker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Maila Fatticcioni
> wrote: Hello. I need to tune a postgres
> installation I've just made to get a better performance. I use two
> identical servers with a hot replicat
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Maila Fatticcioni
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello.
> I need to tune a postgres installation I've just made to get a better
> performance. I use two identical servers with a hot replication
> configuration. The two servers have the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello.
I need to tune a postgres installation I've just made to get a better
performance. I use two identical servers with a hot replication
configuration. The two servers have the following hardware:
Dual Processor Intel Xeon E5-2640V2 20Mb cache 2.0
13 matches
Mail list logo
