On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Laurent Laborde wrote: > > Ok, this explains it. It also means you are probably not getting much > runtime performance benefits from the logging and should think about moving > the logs to different drive(s), among other things because... It is on a separate array which does everything but tablespace (on a separate array) and indexspace (another separate array). >> Of course, when doing sequential read it goes to +250MB/s :) > > ... it means you cannot dedicate 0.064 of second from the array to read > through a single log file without your other transactions suffering. Well, actually, i also change the configuration to synchronous_commit=off It probably was *THE* problem with checkpoint and archiving :) But adding cstream couldn't hurt performance, and i wanted to share this with the list. :) BTW, if you have any idea to improve IO performance, i'll happily read it. We're 100% IO bound. eg: historically, we use JFS with LVM on linux. from the good old time when IO wasn't a problem. i heard that ext3 is not better for postgresql. what else ? xfs ? *hugs* -- ker2x Sysadmin & DBA @ http://www.over-blog.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
