Everyone,
I wanted to follow-up on bonnie results for the internal RAID1 which is
connected to the SmartArray 6i. I believe this is the problem, but I am
not good at interepting the results. Here's an sample of three runs:
scsi disc
array ,16G,47983,67,65492,20,37214,6,73785,87,89787,6,578.2,0,16,+++++,
+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
scsi disc
array ,16G,54634,75,67793,21,36835,6,74190,88,89314,6,579.9,0,16,+++++,
+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
scsi disc
array ,16G,55056,76,66108,20,36859,6,74108,87,89559,6,585.0,0,16,+++++,
+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+
This was run on the internal RAID1 on the outer portion of the discs
formatted at ext2.
Thanks.
Steve
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:35 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
> > >> I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from
> > >> a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well.
> > >
> > > If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate
> > > partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog).
> >
> > If he's doing the same thing on both systems (Sun and HP) and the HP
> > performance is dramatically worse despite using more disks and having faster
> > CPUs and more RAM, ISTM the problem isn't the configuration.
> >
> > Add to this the fact that the Sun machine is CPU bound while the HP is I/O
> > wait bound and I think the problem is the disk hardware or the driver
> > therein.
>
> I agree. The problem here looks to be the RAID controller.
>
> Steve, got access to a different RAID controller to test with?
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly