Search Postgresql Archives

Re: ZFS prefetch considered evil?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Alban Hertroys wrote:
I don't know how you partitioned your zpools, but to me it seems like it'd be preferable to have the PostgreSQL tablespaces (and possibly other data that's likely to be accessed randomly) in a separate zpool from the rest of the system so you can restrict disabling prefetch to just that file-system. You probably already did that...

It could be interesting to see how clustering the relevant tables would affect the prefetch performance, I'd expect disk access to be less random that way. It's probably still better to disable prefetch though.

in fact, somewhere in Sun.com land there's an app-note that suggests creating TWO ZFS mount-points for Postgres, one for the $PGDATA directory, which uses 128k blocks, and another for a tablespace that you put all your regular databases in, this uses 8k blocks. the idea is, the WAL logging is relatively sequential, and takes place in the 128k block zfs, while the actual database table files are far more purely random.

These two ZFS can be made in the same zpool, the normal recommendation is to have one large non-root zpool mirror for all your data (and another smaller zpool mirror for your OS, at least assuming you have more than two physical disk drives).


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]
  Powered by Linux