Everyone, I wanted to follow-up on bonnie results for the internal RAID1 which is connected to the SmartArray 6i. I believe this is the problem, but I am not good at interepting the results. Here's an sample of three runs: scsi disc array ,16G,47983,67,65492,20,37214,6,73785,87,89787,6,578.2,0,16,+++++, +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++ scsi disc array ,16G,54634,75,67793,21,36835,6,74190,88,89314,6,579.9,0,16,+++++, +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++ scsi disc array ,16G,55056,76,66108,20,36859,6,74108,87,89559,6,585.0,0,16,+++++, +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+ This was run on the internal RAID1 on the outer portion of the discs formatted at ext2. Thanks. Steve On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:35 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15, Luke Lonergan wrote: > > Mike, > > > > On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote: > > >> I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from > > >> a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well. > > > > > > If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate > > > partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog). > > > > If he's doing the same thing on both systems (Sun and HP) and the HP > > performance is dramatically worse despite using more disks and having faster > > CPUs and more RAM, ISTM the problem isn't the configuration. > > > > Add to this the fact that the Sun machine is CPU bound while the HP is I/O > > wait bound and I think the problem is the disk hardware or the driver > > therein. > > I agree. The problem here looks to be the RAID controller. > > Steve, got access to a different RAID controller to test with? > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
