Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA04632D2E for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:26:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54598-08 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:26:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from marajade.localdomain (vcs5.camavision.com [63.228.164.252]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1455B63291E for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:26:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (173-20-246-8.client.mchsi.com [173.20.246.8]) (Authenticated sender: andy) by marajade.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 590AA5E4A5; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:26:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4C3CF611.1090702@squeakycode.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:26:09 -0500 From: Andy Colson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ryan Wexler , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: performance on new linux box References: <4C3532CC.6070601@squeakycode.net> <4C3591F40200002500033219@gw.wicourts.gov> <4C35A23B0200002500033220@gw.wicourts.gov> <4C36E6FC.6030902@pws.com.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.001 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_20=-0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201007/210 X-Sequence-Number: 39599 On 07/11/2010 03:02 PM, Ryan Wexler wrote: > > Well I got me a new raid card, MegaRAID 8708EM2, fully equipped with > BBU and read and write caching are enabled. It completely solved my > performance problems. Now everything is way faster than the previous > server. Thanks for all the help everyone. > > One question I do have is this card has a setting called Read Policy > which apparently helps with sequentially reads. Do you think that is > something I should enable? > > > I would think it depends on your usage. If you use clustered indexes (and understand how/when they help) then enabling it would help (cuz clustered is assuming sequential reads). or if you seq scan a table, it might help (as long as the table is stored relatively close together). But if you have a big db, that doesnt fit into cache, and you bounce all over the place doing seeks, I doubt it'll help. -Andy