Thread: Re: Postgres, fsync and RAID controller with 100M of in ternal cache & dedicated battery
Re: Postgres, fsync and RAID controller with 100M of in ternal cache & dedicated battery
From
Franz.Rasper@izb.de
Date:
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