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 prefetc
On Jul 9, 2009, at 3:53 AM, Yaroslav Tykhiy wrote:
On 08/07/2009, at 8:39 PM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Yaroslav Tykhiy wrote:
IIRC prefetch tries to keep data (disk blocks?) in memory that it
fetched recently.
What you described is just a disk cache. And a trivial
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Yaroslav Tykhiy wrote:
My conclusion is that although ZFS prefetch is supposed to be adaptive and
handle random access more or less OK, in reality there is plenty of room for
improvement, so to speak, and for now Postgresql performance can benefit from
its staying just disa
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Yaroslav Tykhiy wrote:
> Are you a local FreeBSD expert? ;-) Jokes apart, I don't think this topic
> has to do with FreeBSD as such; it is mostly about making the advanced
> technologies of Postgresql and ZFS go well together. Even ZFS developers
> admit that in d
On 08/07/2009, at 8:39 PM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Yaroslav Tykhiy wrote:
Hi All,
I have a mid-size database (~300G) used as an email store and
running on a FreeBSD + ZFS combo. Its PG_DATA is on ZFS whilst
xlog goes to a different FFS disk. ZFS prefetch was en
On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Yaroslav Tykhiy wrote:
Hi All,
I have a mid-size database (~300G) used as an email store and
running on a FreeBSD + ZFS combo. Its PG_DATA is on ZFS whilst xlog
goes to a different FFS disk. ZFS prefetch was enabled by default
and disk time on PG_DATA was nea
Hi All,
I have a mid-size database (~300G) used as an email store and running
on a FreeBSD + ZFS combo. Its PG_DATA is on ZFS whilst xlog goes to a
different FFS disk. ZFS prefetch was enabled by default and disk time
on PG_DATA was near 100% all the time with transfer rates heavily
bia