From: Craig A. James <cjames@modgraph-usa.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:05:32 -0700
Message-ID: <450999EC.8070601@modgraph-usa.com> (raw)
I'm experiment with RAID, looking for an inexpensive way to boost performance. I bought 4 Seagate 7200.9 120 GB SATA drives and two SIIG dual-port SATA cards. (NB: I don't plan to run RAID 0 in production, probably RAID 10, so no need to comment on the failure rate of RAID 0.)
I used this raw serial-speed test:
time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=./bigfile bs=8k count=1000000 && sync"
(unmount/remount)
time sh -c "dd if=./bigfile of=/dev/null bs=8k count=1000000 && sync"
Which showed that the RAID 0 4-disk array was almost exactly twice as fast as each disk individually. I expected 4X performance for a 4-disk RAID 0. My suspicion is that each of these budget SATA cards is bandwidth limited; they can't actually handle two disks simultaneously, and I'd need to get four separate SATA cards to get 4X performance (or a more expensive card such as the Areca someone mentioned the other day).
On the other hand, it "feels like" (using our application) the seek performance is quite a bit better, which I'd expect given my hypothesis about the SIIG cards. I don't have concrete benchmarks on seek speed.
Thanks,
Craig
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: cjames@modgraph-usa.com
Subject: Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
In-Reply-To: <450999EC.8070601@modgraph-usa.com>
* 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