yes, 128 MB is pretty pretty small. Maybe the HP Smart Array P800 controller would be a better choice(if you need an hp product). BTW how many harddisks are you using ? Wich RAID ? I am using ext3 as a filesystem (but you have to use the new linux kernels). Try to use another filesystem then ext2. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Scott Marlowe Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. August 2007 01:49 An: dmitry@xxxxxxxxxx Cc: Greg Smith; Postgres General Betreff: Re: Postgres, fsync and RAID controller with 100M of internal cache & dedicated battery On 8/22/07, Dmitry Koterov <dmitry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Also, the controller is configured to use 75% of its memory for write > caching and 25% - for read caching. So reads cannot flood writes. 128 Meg is a pretty small cache for a modern RAID controller. I wonder if this one is just a dog performer. Have you looked at things like the Areca or Escalade with 1g or more cache on them? ---------------------------(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 ---------------------------(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
