Subject: Re: Tuning guidelines for server with 256GB of RAM and
 SSDs?
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <89036cd7-e798-4e2a-a6bd-ab98641a452a@email.android.com>
From: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
Message-ID: <577DE1C2.2010509@catalyst.net.nz>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:59:46 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <89036cd7-e798-4e2a-a6bd-ab98641a452a@email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

On 06/07/16 07:17, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We had a similar situation and the best performance was with 64MB
> background_bytes and 512 MB dirty_bytes.
>
> Tigran.
>
> On Jul 5, 2016 16:51, Kaixi Luo <kaixiluo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>      Here are my server specs:
>
>      RAID1 - 2x480GB Samsung SSD with power loss protection (will be used to
>      store the PostgreSQL database)
>      RAID1 - 2x240GB Crucial SSD with power loss protection. (will be used to
>      store PostgreSQL transactions logs)
>

Can you tell the exact model numbers for the Samsung and Crucial SSD's? 
It typically matters! E.g I have some Crucial M550 that have capacitors 
and (originally) claimed to be power off safe, but with testing have 
been shown to be not really power off safe at all. I'd be dubious about 
Samsungs too.

The Intel Datacenter range (S3700 and similar) are known to have power 
off safety that does work.

regards

Mark


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance