Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37B664FD02 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:47:01 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90439-01-3 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:46:58 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.236]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030F465018B for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:37:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so240781rvf.43 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:37:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=/viRGrDFvJMbQSpHneg55zkGn2gqvOnD5xiVuNX3poY=; b=kQ+F7RrK+ZlCO44p5rKcasXr1zzypTsCoQ1EOmm81YhYelaEvvbLxQz52plWlVKebl gsItWFf2H8CFQyAQWcsq/M1if3bfkuRRJq/GTNV4NJpUecGZ7o3BW6cfIJELYLYoL9ce g9W4vao9M5w3cS9wyFj/zvSpi7YghHMB+KGYU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=ERJGk4E/G+dqCGyaEpkRDkrUL5n8MiOhck7bmibDBYU0f8HRTUdMtmP9Z5J6il11G2 gBVcy08A5HjjsJjTjx9WmbQB4klNwmUTGgj1vga8CPIy+yI42h9HAeq6fH87RsQ2IZuM rTYP2DOxHWvE/nbk8B7hMtvbNYSMbZlUna8S4= Received: by 10.141.88.3 with SMTP id q3mr1446074rvl.46.1221111429692; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.74.11 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:37:09 -0600 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: "James Mansion" Subject: Re: Effects of setting linux block device readahead size Cc: "Greg Smith" , "Scott Carey" , "Mark Wong" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Gabrielle Roth" , "Selena Deckelmann" In-Reply-To: <48C8AACD.5090702@mansionfamily.plus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <70c01d1d0809092353r4ae687a3ycf3d99d43a5680cf@mail.gmail.com> <48C8AACD.5090702@mansionfamily.plus.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200809/129 X-Sequence-Number: 31442 On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:21 PM, James Mansion wrote: > Greg Smith wrote: >> >> Average seek time: 4ms >> Seeks/second: 250 >> Data read/seek: 1MB (read-ahead number goes here) >> Total read bandwidth: 250MB/s >> > Most spinning disks now are nearer to 100MB/s streaming. You've talked > yourself into twice that, random access! The fastest cheetahs on this page hit 171MB/second: http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/cheetah/ Are there any drives that have a faster sequential transfer rate out there? Checked out hitachi's global storage site and they're fastest drive seems just a tad slower.