Re: log writer tuning
- From: "Anand Rao" <panandrao@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:46:32 +0530
Sure, i agree it is too general and that it could not even be an IO problem.
my suggestion was to go raw for redologs since its good for redo write
performance. Now, Direct IO is another beast. i do have my reservations
about it but hey, its a free world.
if Remigiusz can tell us that raw volumes for redologs aren't worth it since
he tried it, then we have definitive proof.
without knowing the disk array details, i really can't comment. i don't even
know what application he has, what's the IO rate/pattern, especially redo
rate.
cheers
anand
On 22/02/07, Kevin Closson <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What you really need is more spindles to do your writes. how you stripe
them, blah blah is another huge discussion. try raw, will help.
…that is too general a statement. Care to benchmark that? Direct I/O and
RAW perform the same for sequential writes *most platforms). Cary and I just
explained yesterday that it may not even be an I/O service time issue to
start with.
Other related posts:
