Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Matthew Wakeling
Subject Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.00.1001151716000.6195@aragorn.flymine.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server  (Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Craig James wrote:
>> That's the perception I get. CFQ is the default scheduler, but in most
>> systems I have seen, it performs worse than the other three schedulers, all
>> of which seem to have identical performance. I would avoid anticipatory on
>> a RAID array though.
>
> I thought the best strategy for a good RAID controller was NOOP.

Agreed. That's what we use here. My observation is though that noop is
identical in performance to anticipatory and deadline. Theoretically, it
should be faster.

Matthew

--
"Take care that thou useth the proper method when thou taketh the measure of
 high-voltage circuits so that thou doth not incinerate both thee and the
 meter; for verily, though thou has no account number and can be easily
 replaced, the meter doth have one, and as a consequence, bringeth much woe
 upon the Supply Department."   -- The Ten Commandments of Electronics

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Alan McKay
Date:
Subject: Re: OT: Db2 connection pooling?
Next
From: Pierre Frédéric Caillaud
Date:
Subject: Re: new server I/O setup