I agree, I think these say you are getting 240MB/s sequential reads and 1000 seeks per second.
That's pretty much the best you'd expect.
- Luke
Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 02:40 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: steve.poe@gmail.com
Cc: Luke Lonergan; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and
These number are pretty darn good for a four disk RAID 10, pretty close to
perfect infact. Nice advert for the 642 - I guess we have a Hardware RAID
controller than will read indpendently from mirrors.
Alex
On 8/8/06, Steve Poe <steve.poe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Luke,
>
> Here are the results of two runs of 16GB file tests on XFS.
>
> scsi disc array
> xfs ,16G,81024,99,153016,24,73422,10,82092,97,243210,17,1043.1
> ,0,16,3172,7,+++++,+++,2957,9,3197,10,+++++,+++,2484,8
> scsi disc array
> xfs ,16G,83320,99,155641,25,73662,10,81756,96,243352,18,1029.1
> ,0,16,3119,10,+++++,+++,2789,7,3263,11,+++++,+++,2014,6
>
> Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> > Can you run bonnie++ version 1.03a on the machine and report the results
> > here?
> >
> > It could be OK if you have the latest Linux driver for cciss, someone
> has
> > reported good results to this list with the latest, bleeding edge
> version of
> > Linux (2.6.17).
> >
> > - Luke
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> > match
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
