>> This is something I'd also would like to test, as a common >> best-practice these days is to go for a SAME (stripe all, mirror everything) setup. >> From a development perspective it's easier to use SAME as the >> developers won't have to think about physical location for new >> tables/indices, so if there's no performance penalty with SAME I'll >> gladly keep it that way. >Usually, it's not the developers task to care about that, but the DBAs responsibility. As we don't have a full-time dedicated DBA (although I'm the one who do most DBA related tasks) I would aim for making physical location as transparent as possible, otherwise I'm afraid I won't be doing anything else than supporting developers with that - and I *do* have other things to do as well :) >> In a previous test, using cd=5000 and cs=20 increased transaction >> throughput by ~20% so I'll definitely fiddle with that in the coming >> tests as well. >How many parallel transactions do you have? That was when running BenchmarkSQL (http://sourceforge.net/projects/benchmarksql) with 100 concurrent users ("terminals"), which I assume means 100 parallel transactions at most. The target application for this DB has 3-4 times as many concurrent connections so it's possible that one would have to find other cs/cd numbers better suited for that scenario. Tweaking bgwriter is another task I'll look into as well.. Btw, here's the bonnie++ results from two different array sets (10+18, 4+24) on the MSA1500: LUN: WAL, 10 disks, stripe size 32K ------------------------------------ Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP sesell01 32G 56139 93 73250 22 16530 3 30488 45 57489 5 477.3 1 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 2458 90 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 3121 99 +++++ +++ 10469 98 LUN: WAL, 4 disks, stripe size 8K ---------------------------------- Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP sesell01 32G 49170 82 60108 19 13325 2 15778 24 21489 2 266.4 0 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 2432 86 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 3106 99 +++++ +++ 10248 98 LUN: DATA, 18 disks, stripe size 32K ------------------------------------- Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP sesell01 32G 59990 97 87341 28 19158 4 30200 46 57556 6 495.4 1 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 1640 92 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 1736 99 +++++ +++ 10919 99 LUN: DATA, 24 disks, stripe size 64K ------------------------------------- Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP sesell01 32G 59443 97 118515 39 25023 5 30926 49 60835 6 531.8 1 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 2499 90 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 2817 99 +++++ +++ 10971 100 Regards, Mikael
