On 21/05/2014 18:17, Sean Chittenden wrote:
>> I did some tests with zfs, and results where appallingly bad, but that was
>> with db size > ram.
>> >
>> > I think the model used by PostgreSQL, as most databases, are very disk
>> > block centric. Using zfs makes it hard to get good performance.
On 03/18/14 03:12, Petr Janda wrote:
> ust want to share these pgbench results done by DragonFlyBSD, and would
> like some input on why these numbers look so bad and what can be done to
> improve (ie. kernel tunables etc) the performance.
>
> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachmen
On 17/11/2011 19:04, Mark Felder wrote:
>> Question 3:
>> Anyone Recommend for MySQL server? (Performance)
>
> No idea; I haven't run any SQL servers on ZFS
The sort of randomly located small IOs that RDBMSes do is the hardest
sort of IO pattern for ZFS (or any filesystem for that matter) to
mana
Gary Gatten wrote:
OT now, but in high i/o envs with high concurrency needs, RAID5 is
still the way to go, esp if 90% of i/o is reads. Of course it depends
on file size / type as well... Anyway, let's sum it up with "a
storage subsystem is only as fast as its slowest link"
It's not just the bal
