I agree, I think these say you are getting 240MB/s sequential reads and 1000 seeks per second. That's pretty much the best you'd expect. - Luke Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 02:40 AM Eastern Standard Time To: steve.poe@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Luke Lonergan; pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and These number are pretty darn good for a four disk RAID 10, pretty close to perfect infact. Nice advert for the 642 - I guess we have a Hardware RAID controller than will read indpendently from mirrors. Alex On 8/8/06, Steve Poe <steve.poe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Luke, > > Here are the results of two runs of 16GB file tests on XFS. > > scsi disc array > xfs ,16G,81024,99,153016,24,73422,10,82092,97,243210,17,1043.1 > ,0,16,3172,7,+++++,+++,2957,9,3197,10,+++++,+++,2484,8 > scsi disc array > xfs ,16G,83320,99,155641,25,73662,10,81756,96,243352,18,1029.1 > ,0,16,3119,10,+++++,+++,2789,7,3263,11,+++++,+++,2014,6 > > Thanks. > > Steve > > > > > Can you run bonnie++ version 1.03a on the machine and report the results > > here? > > > > It could be OK if you have the latest Linux driver for cciss, someone > has > > reported good results to this list with the latest, bleeding edge > version of > > Linux (2.6.17). > > > > - Luke > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > > match > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq >
