On Jan 4, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> Strange, John W wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anyone had a chance to recompile and try larger a larger blocksize
>>> than 8192 with pSQL 8.4.x?
>>
>> While I haven't done the actual experiment you're
: Ben Chobot; Merlin Moncure
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Performance
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Question: BlockSize > 8192 with FusionIO
This has gotten a lot better with the 2.x drivers as well.
I'm completely aware of the FusionIO and it's advantages/disadvantages.. I'm
M
To: Merlin Moncure
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Performance
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Question: BlockSize > 8192 with FusionIO
On Jan 4, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
> most flash drives, especially mlc flash, use huge blocks anyways on
> physical level.
On Jan 4, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
> most flash drives, especially mlc flash, use huge blocks anyways on
> physical level. the numbers claimed here
> (http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodrive/) (141k write iops) are
> simply not believable without write buffering. i didn't se
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Strange, John W wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone had a chance to recompile and try larger a larger blocksize
>> than 8192 with pSQL 8.4.x?
>
> While I haven't done the actual experiment you're asking about, the problem
> working against you here is how WA
Strange, John W wrote:
Has anyone had a chance to recompile and try larger a larger blocksize than
8192 with pSQL 8.4.x?
While I haven't done the actual experiment you're asking about, the
problem working against you here is how WAL data is used to protect
against partial database writes. S
Has anyone had a chance to recompile and try larger a larger blocksize than
8192 with pSQL 8.4.x? I'm finally getting around to tuning some FusionIO
drives that we are setting up. We are looking to setup 4 fusionIO drives per
server, and then use pgpooler to scale them to 3 servers so that we
