From: Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: RAID stripe size question
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:10:05 +0200
Message-ID: <20060716231005.GA4746@uio.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B4E4BB1@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com>
References: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B4E4BB1@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com>
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 12:52:17AM +0200, Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> Now to the interesting part: would it make sense to use different stripe
> sizes on the separate disk arrays? In theory, a smaller stripe size
> (8-32K) should increase sequential write throughput at the cost of
> decreased positioning performance, which sounds good for WAL (assuming
> WAL is never "searched" during normal operation).
For large writes (ie. sequential write throughput), it doesn't really matter
what the stripe size is; all the disks will have to both seek and write
anyhow.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
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: sgunderson@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: RAID stripe size question
In-Reply-To: <20060716231005.GA4746@uio.no>
* 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