Re: [Testperf-general] dbt2 & opteron performance
От | Mark Wong |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [Testperf-general] dbt2 & opteron performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200507291951.j6TJpJjA006130@smtp.osdl.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [Testperf-general] dbt2 & opteron performance ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [Testperf-general] dbt2 & opteron performance
("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>)
Re: [Testperf-general] dbt2 & opteron performance (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:39:08 -0500 "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:00:44PM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:55:55 -0700 > > Mark Wong <markw@osdl.org> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:48:09 -0500 > > > "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:15:31PM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:17:25 -0500 > > > > > "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 07:32:34PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > > > > > > This 4-way has 8GB of memory and four Adaptec 2200s controllers attached > > > > > > > > to 80 spindles (eight 10-disk arrays). For those familiar with the > > > > > > > > schema, here is a visual of the disk layout: > > > > > > > > http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/layout-6.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you by-chance tried it with the logs and data just going to > > > > > > seperate RAID10s? I'm wondering if a large RAID10 would do a better job > > > > > > of spreading the load than segmenting things to specific drives. > > > > > > > > > > No, haven't tried that. That would reduce my number of spindles as I > > > > > scale up. ;) I have the disks attached as JBODs and use LVM2 to stripe > > > > > the disks together. > > > > > > > > I'm confused... why would it reduce the number of spindles? Is > > > > everything just striped right now? You could always s/RAID10/RAID0/. > > > > > > RAID10 requires a minimum of 4 devices per LUN, I think. At least 2 > > > devices in a mirror, at least 2 mirrored devices to stripe. > > > > > > RAID0 wouldn't be any different than what I have now, except if I use > > > hardware RAID I can't stripe across controllers. That's treating LVM2 > > > striping equal to software RAID0 of course. > > > > Oops, spindles was the wrong word to describe what I was losing. But I > > wouldn't be able to spread the reads/writes across as many spindles if I > > have any mirroring. > > Not sure I fully understand what you're trying to say, but it seems like > it might still be worth trying my original idea of just turning all 80 > disks into one giant RAID0/striped array and see how much more bandwidth > you get out of that. At a minimum it would allow you to utilize the > remaining spindles, which appear to be unused right now. I have done that before actually, when the tablespace patch came out. I was able to get almost 40% more throughput with half the drives than striping all the disks together. Mark
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: