From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Read/Write block sizes
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:24:24 -0400
Message-ID: <20050823232424.GM8667@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <60k6icpapm.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
References: <d4b67d7c2b.d7c2bd4b67@bur-mail1.east.sun.com>
<60k6icpapm.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:09:09PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
>What we have been finding, as RAID controllers get smarter, is that it
>is getting increasingly futile to try to attach knobs to 'disk stuff;'
>it is *way* more effective to add a few more spindles to an array than
>it is to fiddle with which disks are to be allocated to what database
>'objects.'
That statement doesn't say anything about trying to maximize performance
to or from a disk array. Yes, controllers are getting smarter--but they
aren't omnicient. IME an I/O bound sequential table scan doesn't get
data moving off the disk nearly as fast as say, a dd with a big ibs.
Why? There's obviously a lot of factors at work, but one of those
factors is that the raid controller can optimize "grab this meg" a lot
more than it can optimize "grab this 8k".
Mike Stone
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: mstone+postgres@mathom.us, cbbrowne@acm.org
Subject: Re: Read/Write block sizes
In-Reply-To: <20050823232424.GM8667@mathom.us>
* 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