Re: Postgres, fsync and RAID controller with 100M of in ternal cache & dedicated battery - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Franz.Rasper@izb.de
Subject Re: Postgres, fsync and RAID controller with 100M of in ternal cache & dedicated battery
Date
Msg-id 11EC9A592C31034C88965C87AF18C2A702B8362F@m0000s61
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-general
yes, 128 MB is pretty pretty small.

Maybe the HP Smart Array P800 controller would be a better choice(if you
need an hp product).

BTW how many harddisks are you using ? Wich RAID ? I am using ext3 as a
filesystem (but you have to use the new linux kernels).
Try to use another filesystem then ext2.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] Im Auftrag von Scott Marlowe
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. August 2007 01:49
An: dmitry@koterov.ru
Cc: Greg Smith; Postgres General
Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] Postgres, fsync and RAID controller with 100M of
internal cache & dedicated battery


On 8/22/07, Dmitry Koterov <dmitry@koterov.ru> wrote:
> Also, the controller is configured to use 75% of its memory for write
> caching and 25% - for read caching. So reads cannot flood writes.

128 Meg is a pretty small cache for a modern RAID controller.  I
wonder if this one is just a dog performer.

Have you looked at things like the Areca or Escalade with 1g or more
cache on them?

---------------------------(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

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Phoenix Kiula"
Date:
Subject: Re: reporting tools
Next
From: Dave Page
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs Firebird feature comparison finished