Re: seqential vs random io - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Anjan Dave
Subject Re: seqential vs random io
Date
Msg-id 4BAFBB6B9CC46F41B2AD7D9F4BBAF785098A4B@vt-pe2550-001.vantage.vantage.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to seqential vs random io  ("David Parker" <dparker@tazznetworks.com>)
List pgsql-performance
I would tell him to go for the random, which is what most DBs would be by nature. What you need to understand will be
thecache parameters, read/write cache amount, and stripe size, depending on your controller type and whatever it
defaultsto on these things.
 
 
Thanks,
Anjan

    -----Original Message----- 
    From: David Parker [mailto:dparker@tazznetworks.com] 
    Sent: Mon 5/23/2005 4:58 PM 
    To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org 
    Cc: 
    Subject: [PERFORM] seqential vs random io
    
    
    I just got a question from one our QA guys who is configuring a RAID 10 disk that is destined to hold a postgresql
database.The disk configuration procedure is asking him if he wants to optimize for sequential or random access. My
firstthought is that random is what we would want, but then I started wondering if it's not that simple, and my
knowledgeof stuff at the hardware level is, well, limited.....
 
     
    If it were your QA guy, what would you tell him?

    - DAP
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    David Parker    Tazz Networks    (401) 709-5130
     
    

     


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: seqential vs random io
Next
From: mark durrant
Date:
Subject: Select performance vs. mssql