X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788239FB1BF for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:28:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 58953-05 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:28:47 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mir3-fs.mir3.com (mail.mir3.com [65.208.188.100]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE53C9FB24D for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:28:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: mir3-fs.mir3.com 172.16.1.11 from 172.16.2.68 172.16.2.68 via HTTP with MS-WebStorage 6.0.6249 Received: from archimedes.mirlogic.com by mir3-fs.mir3.com; 24 Aug 2006 12:28:42 -0700 Subject: Re: PowerEdge 2950 questions From: Mark Lewis To: Merlin Moncure Cc: Jeff Davis , Bucky Jordan , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4104ACF@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com> <1156285374.15743.118.camel@dogma.v10.wvs> <1156436690.15743.181.camel@dogma.v10.wvs> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: MIR3, Inc. Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:28:42 -0700 Message-Id: <1156447722.9657.255.camel@archimedes> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-27) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.267 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/393 X-Sequence-Number: 20578 > it's worse than that. if you need to read something that is not in > the o/s cache, all the disks except for one need to be sent to a > physical location in order to get the data. Thats the basic rule with > striping: it optimizes for sequential i/o in expense of random i/o. > There are some optimizations that can help, but not much. caching by > the controller can increase performance on writes because it can > optimize the movement across the disks by instituting a delay between > the write request and the actual write. > > raid 1 (or 1+x) is the opposite. It allows the drive heads to move > independantly on reads when combined with some smart algorithms. > writes however must involve all the disk heads however. Many > controllers do not to seem to optimze raid 1 properly although linux > software raid seems to. > > A 4 disk raid 1, for example, could deliver four times the seek > performance which would make it feel much faster than a 4 disk raid 0 > under certain conditions. I understand random mid-sized seeks (seek to x and read 512k) being slow on RAID5, but if the read size is small enough not to cross a stripe boundary, this could be optimized to only one seek on one drive. Do most controllers just not do this, or is there some other reason that I'm not thinking of that would force all disks to seek? -- Mark