From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Nielsen <jan.sture.nielsen@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: local-storage versus SAN sequential read performance comparison
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:50:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4FBA642C.6040501@optionshouse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOR=d=2NYpmrsJX=3-bWoPKGwzzaA=iZoqh=SCXu=GSGAzmiVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANxH4hHF8_qjiSoM5U_epPcRa2bu9N-wU8dArJOCQybYUxSV7w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOR=d=2NYpmrsJX=3-bWoPKGwzzaA=iZoqh=SCXu=GSGAzmiVA@mail.gmail.com>
On 05/21/2012 10:41 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> How fast is the link to your SAN? If it's Gigabit, then 80MB/s would
> be pretty reasonable.
Wow, I didn't even think of that. I was looking up specs on the SAN. :)
Those stats are pretty horrible for sequential reads. The SAN should
improve random reads, not mercilessly ruin sequential.
That does sound like the problem, though.
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas@optionshouse.com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
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: sthomas@optionshouse.com, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, jan.sture.nielsen@gmail.com
Subject: Re: local-storage versus SAN sequential read performance comparison
In-Reply-To: <4FBA642C.6040501@optionshouse.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