pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: Greg Smith *EXTERN* <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
To: Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>
Subject: Re: Linux I/O tuning:  CFQ vs. deadline
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:24:56 -0600
Message-ID: <4B6FD868020000250002F084@gw.wicourts.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C203938157@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at>
References: <4B6FDD26.9010106@2ndquadrant.com>
	<D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C203938157@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at>

"Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> wrote:
> Greg Smith wrote:
 
>> http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/fsopbench/
> 
> That is interesting; particularly since I have made one quite
> different experience in which deadline outperformed CFQ by a
> factor of approximately 4.
 
I haven't benchmarked it per se, but when we started using
PostgreSQL on Linux, the benchmarks and posts I could find
recommended deadline=elevator, so we went with that, and when the
setting was missed on a machine it was generally found fairly
quickly because people complained that the machine wasn't performing
to expectations; changing this to deadline corrected the problem.
 
> So I tried to look for differences, and I found two possible
> places:
> - My test case was read-only, our production system is
>   read-mostly.
 
Yeah, our reads are typically several times our writes -- up to
maybe 10 to 1.
 
> - We did not have a RAID array, but a SAN box (with RAID inside).
 
No SAN here, but if I recall correctly, this was mostly an issue on
our larger arrays -- RAID 5 with dozens of spindles on a BBU
hardware controller.
 
Other differences between our environment and that of the benchmarks
cited above:
 
 - We use SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, so we've been on *much*
   earlier kernel versions that this benchmark.
 
 - We've been using xfs, with noatime,nobarrier.
 
I'll keep this in mind as something to try if we have problem
performance in line with what that page describes, though....
 
-Kevin



view thread (20+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <4B6FD868020000250002F084@gw.wicourts.gov>
Permalink:  ../4B6FD868020000250002F084@gw.wicourts.gov/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4B6FD868020000250002F084@gw.wicourts.gov

 · 

reply

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: Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, greg@2ndquadrant.com, laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at
  Subject: Re: Linux I/O tuning:  CFQ vs. deadline
  In-Reply-To: <4B6FD868020000250002F084@gw.wicourts.gov>

* 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