On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Jeff wrote:
> Using 4 of these with a dataset of about 30GB across a few files
(Machine has
> 8GB mem) I went from around 100 io/sec to 330 changing to noop. Quite
an
> improvement. If you have a decent controller CFQ is not what you want.
I
> tried deadline as well and it was a touch slower. The controller is a
3ware
> 9550sx with 4 disks in a raid10.
I ran Greg's fadvise test program a while back on a 12-disc array. The
three schedulers (deadline, noop, anticipatory) all performed pretty-much
the same, with the fourth (cfq, the default) being consistently slower.
> it also seems changing elevators on the fly works fine (echo
schedulername >
> /sys/block/.../queue/scheduler I admit I sat there flipping back and
forth
> going "disk go fast.. disk go slow.. disk go fast... " :)
Oh Homer Simpson, your legacy lives on.
Matthew
--
I suppose some of you have done a Continuous Maths course. Yes? Continuous
Maths? <menacing stares from audience> Whoah, it was like that, was it!
-- Computer Science Lecturer
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
|
