From: Christiaan Willemsen <cwillemsen@technocon.com>
To: Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>
Cc: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: How to setup disk spindles for best performance
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:06:13 +0200
Message-ID: <48AD8465.7090604@technocon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a1ec7d000808210753w3a954e5g1d4f4325775d8eca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <972BDF1A-B4ED-46EC-B416-0CDF15A0439A@technocon.com>
<b42b73150808201849t3577d65eq76e7484d8519af51@mail.gmail.com>
<331B8FD1-7460-4B97-BD2C-03D8381E1C4D@technocon.com>
<48AD022E.7090400@commandprompt.com>
<48AD288B.8030902@technocon.com>
<a1ec7d000808210753w3a954e5g1d4f4325775d8eca@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Scott,
Great info! Our RAID card is at the moment a ICP vortex (Adaptec)
ICP5165BR, and I'll be using it with Ubuntu server 8.04. I tried
OpenSolaris, but it yielded even more terrible performance, specially
using ZFS.. I guess that was just a missmatch. Anyway, I'm going to
return the controller, because it does not scale very well with more
that 4 disks in raid 10. Bandwidth is limited to 350MB/sec, and IOPS
scale badly with extra disks...
So I guess, I'll be waiting for another controller first. The idea for
xlog + os on 4 disk raid 10 and the rest for the data sound good :) I
hope it will turn out that way too.. First another controller..
Regards,
Christiaan
Scott Carey wrote:
> Indexes will be random write workload, but these won't by synchronous
> writes and will be buffered by the raid controller's cache. Assuming
> you're using a hardware raid controller that is, and one that doesn't
> have major performance problems on your platform. Which brings those
> questions up --- what is your RAID card and OS?
>
> For reads, if your shared_buffers is large enough, your heavily used
> indexes won't likely go to disk much at all.
>
> A good raid controller will typically help distribute the workload
> effectively on a large array.
>
> You probably want a simple 2 disk mirror or 4 disks in raid 10 for
> your OS + xlog, and the rest for data + indexes -- with hot spares IF
> your card supports them.
>
> The biggest risk to splitting up data and indexes is that you don't
> know how much I/O each needs relative to each other, and if this isn't
> a relatively constant ratio you will have one subset busy while the
> other subset is idle.
> Unless you have extensively profiled your disk activity into index and
> data subsets and know roughly what the optimal ratio is, its probably
> going to cause more problems than it fixes.
> Furthermore, if this ratio changes at all, its a maintenance
> nightmare. How much each would need in a perfect world is application
> dependant, so there can be no general recommendation other than:
> don't do it.
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Christiaan Willemsen
> <cwillemsen@technocon.com <mailto:cwillemsen@technocon.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Joshua,
>
> So what about putting the indexes on a separate array? Since we do
> a lot of inserts indexes are going to be worked on a lot of the time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christiaan
>
>
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> Christiaan Willemsen wrote:
>
> So, what you are basically saying, is that a single mirror
> is in general more than enough to facilitate the
> transaction log.
>
>
> http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/joshua_drake/2008/04/is_that_performance_i_smell_ext2_vs_ext3_on_...
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/HP_ProLiant_DL380_G5_Tuning_Guide
>
> And to answer your question, yes. Transaction logs are written
> sequentially. You do not need a journaled file system and raid
> 1 is plenty for most if not all work loads.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list
> (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> <mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
>
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: cwillemsen@technocon.com, scott@richrelevance.com, jd@commandprompt.com, mmoncure@gmail.com
Subject: Re: How to setup disk spindles for best performance
In-Reply-To: <48AD8465.7090604@technocon.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