X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC0D9FB2F0 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:25:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82996-05 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:25:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461209FB2DC for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:25:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id AA09D56442; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:25:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:25:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:25:24 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and Message-ID: <20060815162524.GR27928@pervasive.com> References: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D03FFEF6E@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com> <721b21dc0608082245u6ee62e7dg522ff18e4d72683@mail.gmail.com> <20060809210539.GR40481@pervasive.com> <1155180553.13315.0.camel@amd64-gentoo-laptop> <20060810110935.GF2900@mathom.us> <20060814153841.GF27928@pervasive.com> <20060814170338.GM2900@mathom.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060814170338.GM2900@mathom.us> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p4 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060815:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::i+im3mr106dlrXYx:00000 0000000000000000000000001LXr X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/227 X-Sequence-Number: 20412 On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 01:03:41PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 10:38:41AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > >Got any data to back that up? > > yes. that I'm willing to dig out? no. :) Well, I'm not digging hard numbers out either, so that's fair. :) But it would be very handy if people posted results from any testing they're doing as part of setting up new hardware. Actually, a wiki would probably be ideal for this... > >The problem with seperate partitions is that it means more head movement > >for the drives. If it's all one partition the pg_xlog data will tend to > >be interspersed with the heap data, meaning less need for head > >repositioning. > > The pg_xlog files will tend to be created up at the front of the disk > and just sit there. Any affect the positioning has one way or the other > isn't going to be measurable/repeatable. With a write cache for pg_xlog > the positioning isn't really going to matter anyway, since you don't > have to wait for a seek to do the write. Certainly... my contention is that if you have a good controller that's caching writes then drive layout basically won't matter at all, because the controller will just magically make things optimal. > From what I've observed in testing, I'd guess that the issue is that > certain filesystem operations (including, possibly, metadata operations) > are handled in order. If you have xlog on a seperate partition there > will never be anything competing with a log write on the server side, > which won't necessarily be true on a shared filesystem. Even if you have > a battery backed write cache, you might still have to wait a relatively > long time for the pg_xlog data to be written out if there's already a > lot of other stuff in a filesystem write queue. Well, if the controller is caching with a BBU, I'm not sure that order matters anymore, because the controller should be able to re-order at will. Theoretically. :) But this is why having some actual data posted somewhere would be great. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461