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 11C769FB1BA for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:42:10 -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 31439-07 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:41:55 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from kenobi.snowman.net (kenobi.snowman.net [70.84.9.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19449FA3AF for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:41:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: by kenobi.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 41B9758051; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:41:54 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:41:54 -0400 From: Stephen Frost To: Tim Allen Cc: Scott Marlowe , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SAN performance mystery Message-ID: <20060619124153.GQ8588@kenobi.snowman.net> Mail-Followup-To: Tim Allen , Scott Marlowe , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <4491D61B.9040507@proximity.com.au> <1150408614.26538.95.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <449677EB.50609@proximity.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CRtNIOhYBPVBLkTX" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <449677EB.50609@proximity.com.au> X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/ X-Info: http://www.snowman.net X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.16-1-vserver-686 (i686) X-Uptime: 08:34:13 up 42 days, 6:29, 11 users, load average: 0.59, 0.88, 0.92 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/376 X-Sequence-Number: 19733 --CRtNIOhYBPVBLkTX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Tim Allen (tim@proximity.com.au) wrote: > The conclusion I'm drawing here is that this SAN does not perform at all= =20 > well, and is not a good database platform. It's sounding from replies=20 > from other people that this might be a general property of SAN's, or at= =20 > least the ones that are not stratospherically priced. I'd have to agree with you about the specific SAN/setup you're working with there. I certainly disagree that it's a general property of SAN's though. We've got a DS4300 with FC controllers and drives, hosts are generally dual-controller load-balanced and it works quite decently. Indeed, the EMC SANs are generally the high-priced ones too, so not really sure what to tell you about the poor performance you're seeing out of it. Your IT folks and/or your EMC rep. should be able to resolve that, really... Enjoy, Stephen --CRtNIOhYBPVBLkTX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFElpuRrzgMPqB3kigRAuo8AJ9vlxRK7VPMb9rN7AFm/qMNHLbdBwCfZiih ZHApIcDhhj/J/Es9KPXEl/s= =25MX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CRtNIOhYBPVBLkTX--