From: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: stange@rentec.com
Cc: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: Joshua Marsh <icub3d@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:46:58 -0800
Message-ID: <BFA31B52.14012%llonergan@greenplum.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <437DDA26.4000603@rentec.com>
Alan,
On 11/18/05 5:41 AM, "Alan Stange" <stange@rentec.com> wrote:
>
> That's interesting, as I occasionally see more than 110MB/s of
> postgresql IO on our system. I'm using a 32KB block size, which has
> been a huge win in performance for our usage patterns. 300GB database
> with a lot of turnover. A vacuum analyze now takes about 3 hours, which
> is much shorter than before. Postgresql 8.1, dual opteron, 8GB memory,
> Linux 2.6.11, FC drives.
300GB / 3 hours = 27MB/s.
If you are using the 2.6 linux kernel, you may be fooled into thinking you
burst more than you actually get in net I/O because the I/O stats changed in
tools like iostat and vmstat.
The only meaningful stats are (size of data) / (time to process data). Do a
sequential scan of one of your large tables that you know the size of, then
divide by the run time and report it.
I'm compiling some new test data to make my point now.
Regards,
- Luke
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: llonergan@greenplum.com, stange@rentec.com, pg@fastcrypt.com, gsstark@mit.edu, icub3d@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
In-Reply-To: <BFA31B52.14012%llonergan@greenplum.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