Alex Turner wrote:
>[snip]
>
>
>>Adding drives will not let you get lower response times than the average seek
>>time on your drives*. But it will let you reach that response time more often.
>>
>>
>>
>[snip]
>
>I believe your assertion is fundamentaly flawed. Adding more drives
>will not let you reach that response time more often. All drives are
>required to fill every request in all RAID levels (except possibly
>0+1, but that isn't used for enterprise applicaitons).
>
Actually 0+1 is the recommended configuration for postgres databases
(both for xlog and for the bulk data), because the write speed of RAID5
is quite poor.
Hence you base assumption is not correct, and adding drives *does* help.
>Most requests
>in OLTP require most of the request time to seek, not to read. Only
>in single large block data transfers will you get any benefit from
>adding more drives, which is atypical in most database applications.
>For most database applications, the only way to increase
>transactions/sec is to decrease request service time, which is
>generaly achieved with better seek times or a better controller card,
>or possibly spreading your database accross multiple tablespaces on
>seperate paritions.
>
>
This is probably true. However, if you are doing lots of concurrent
connections, and things are properly spread across multiple spindles
(using RAID0+1, or possibly tablespaces across multiple raids).
Then each seek occurs on a separate drive, which allows them to occur at
the same time, rather than sequentially. Having 2 processes competing
for seeking on the same drive is going to be worse than having them on
separate drives.
John
=:->
