pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@acm.org>
To: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Sequential I/O Cost (was Re: A Better External Sort?)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:33:46 -0700
Message-ID: <1127968426.8954.19.camel@noodles> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <21402654.1127923414088.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <21402654.1127923414088.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 12:03 -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> >From: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@acm.org>
> >Perhaps I believe this because you can now buy as much sequential I/O
> >as you want.  Random I/O is the only real savings.
> >
> 1= No, you can not "buy as much sequential IO as you want".  Even if
> with an infinite budget, there are physical and engineering limits.  Long
> before you reach those limits, you will pay exponentially increasing costs
> for linearly increasing performance gains.  So even if you _can_ buy a
> certain level of sequential IO, it may not be the most efficient way to
> spend money.

This is just false.  You can buy sequential I/O for linear money up to
and beyond your platform's main memory bandwidth.  Even 1GB/sec will
severely tax memory bandwidth of mainstream platforms, and you can
achieve this rate for a modest cost.  

I have one array that can supply this rate and it has only 15 disks.  It
would fit on my desk.  I think your dire talk about the limits of
science and engineering may be a tad overblown.




view thread (2+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <1127968426.8954.19.camel@noodles>
Permalink:  ../1127968426.8954.19.camel@noodles/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/1127968426.8954.19.camel@noodles

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: jwbaker@acm.org, rjpeace@earthlink.net
  Subject: Re: Sequential I/O Cost (was Re: A Better External Sort?)
  In-Reply-To: <1127968426.8954.19.camel@noodles>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox