Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++ - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From J Sisson
Subject Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++
Date
Msg-id CAJ9nrX96d3u_Ythum91JPsJ4oxKR+4WgTD7174_+MRsMn+ETdg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++  (Ogden <lists@darkstatic.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Ogden <lists@darkstatic.com> wrote:


What about the OS itself? I put the Debian linux sysem also on XFS but haven't played around with it too much. Is it better to put the OS itself on ext4 and the /var/lib/pgsql partition on XFS?


We've always put the OS on whatever default filesystem it uses, and then put PGDATA on a RAID 10/XFS and PGXLOG on RAID 1/XFS (and for our larger installations, we setup another RAID 10/XFS for heavily accessed indexes or tables).  If you have a battery-backed cache on your controller (and it's been tested to work), you can increase performance by mounting the XFS partitions with "nobarrier"...just make sure your battery backup works.

I don't know how current this information is for 9.x (we're still on 8.4), but there is (used to be?) a threshold above which more shared_buffers didn't help.  The numbers vary, but somewhere between 8 and 16 GB is typically quoted.  We set ours to 25% RAM, but no more than 12 GB (even for our machines with 128+ GB of RAM) because that seems to be a breaking point for our workload.

Of course, no advice will take the place of testing with your workload, so be sure to test =)

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Tuning Tips for a new Server
Next
From: Ogden
Date:
Subject: Re: Tuning Tips for a new Server