From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com>
Cc: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: limiting performance impact of wal archiving.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:43:34 -0700
Message-ID: <dcc563d10911100743j640c471cn78b5394dca2b5120@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8a1bfe660911100700l2a44f638m97ea6136b65deb21@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8a1bfe660911100355l34a557ffj8244079c1fb689b5@mail.gmail.com>
<hdbrv8$p35$1@ger.gmane.org>
<8a1bfe660911100700l2a44f638m97ea6136b65deb21@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Desktop drive can easily do 60MB/s in *sequential* read/write.
> We use high performance array of 15.000rpm SAS disk on an octocore
> 32GB and IO is always a problem.
How man drives in the array? Controller? RAID level?
> I explain the problem :
>
> This server (doing wal archiving) is the master node of the
> over-blog's server farm.
> hundreds of GB of data, tens of millions of articles and comments,
> millions of user, ...
> ~250 read/write sql requests per seconds for the master
> ~500 read sql request per slave.
That's really not very fast.
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: scott.marlowe@gmail.com, kerdezixe@gmail.com, ivoras@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: limiting performance impact of wal archiving.
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10911100743j640c471cn78b5394dca2b5120@mail.gmail.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