From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Cosimo Streppone <cosimo(at)streppone(dot)it> |
Cc: | Postgresql Performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: High end server and storage for a PostgreSQL OLTP system |
Date: | 2005-02-01 04:56:45 |
Message-ID: | 20050201045645.GC32356@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:41:32PM +0100, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
> 2) The goal is to make the db handle 100 tps (something like
> 100 users). What kind of server and storage should I provide?
>
> The actual servers our application runs on normally have
> 2 Intel Xeon processors, 2-4 Gb RAM, RAID 0/1/5 SCSI
> disk storage with hard drives @ 10,000 rpm
You might look at Opteron's, which theoretically have a higher data
bandwidth. If you're doing anything data intensive, like a sort in
memory, this could make a difference.
> 4) Is it correct to suppose that multiple RAID 1 arrays
> can provide the fastest I/O ?
> I usually reserve one RAID1 array to db data directory,
> one RAID1 array to pg_xlog directory and one RAID1 array
> for os and application needs.
RAID10 will be faster than RAID1. The key factor to a high performance
database is a high performance I/O system. If you look in the archives
you'll find people running postgresql on 30 and 40 drive arrays.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-01 05:06:27 | Re: Automagic tuning |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-02-01 04:52:11 | Re: Automagic tuning |