X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0899DC8A3 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:02:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88826-06 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:01:58 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw04.mi8.com [63.240.6.44]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38CFE9DC86A for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:01:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from 172.16.1.24 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D4)); Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:01:44 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: C8FB4D43-1108-484A-A898-3CBCC7906230 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.175]) by d01smtp03.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:01:43 -0500 Received: from 67.103.45.218 ([67.103.45.218]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.104]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:01:43 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:01:43 -0800 Subject: Re: help tuning queries on large database From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "peter royal" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] help tuning queries on large database Thread-Index: AcYVQYj+wSPLZwlXTgKAJVCFm3MktQADZgxN In-Reply-To: <414814B8-556C-47DB-B364-A5A681CC3522@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2006 19:01:43.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[21C38820:01C6154F] X-WSS-ID: 6FDC6C9212G10261419-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.285 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] X-Spam-Score: 1.285 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200601/67 X-Sequence-Number: 16545 Peter, On 1/9/06 9:23 AM, "peter royal" wrote: > This is a 2-disk RAID0 Your 2-disk results look fine - what about your 8-disk results? Given that you want to run in production with RAID10, the most you should expect is 2x the 2-disk results using all 8 of your disks. If you want the best rate for production while preserving data integrity, I recommend running your Areca in RAID5, in which case you should expect 3.5x your 2-disk results (7 drives). You can assume you'll get that if you use XFS + readahead. OTOH - I'd like to see your test results anyway :-) - Luke