On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:00:44PM -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:55:55 -0700
> Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:48:09 -0500
> > "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:15:31PM -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:17:25 -0500
> > > > "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 07:32:34PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > > > > > This 4-way has 8GB of memory and four Adaptec 2200s controllers attached
> > > > > > > to 80 spindles (eight 10-disk arrays). For those familiar with the
> > > > > > > schema, here is a visual of the disk layout:
> > > > > > > http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/layout-6.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you by-chance tried it with the logs and data just going to
> > > > > seperate RAID10s? I'm wondering if a large RAID10 would do a better job
> > > > > of spreading the load than segmenting things to specific drives.
> > > >
> > > > No, haven't tried that. That would reduce my number of spindles as I
> > > > scale up. ;) I have the disks attached as JBODs and use LVM2 to stripe
> > > > the disks together.
> > >
> > > I'm confused... why would it reduce the number of spindles? Is
> > > everything just striped right now? You could always s/RAID10/RAID0/.
> > RAID10 requires a minimum of 4 devices per LUN, I think. At least 2
> > devices in a mirror, at least 2 mirrored devices to stripe.
> > RAID0 wouldn't be any different than what I have now, except if I use
> > hardware RAID I can't stripe across controllers. That's treating LVM2
> > striping equal to software RAID0 of course.
> Oops, spindles was the wrong word to describe what I was losing. But I
> wouldn't be able to spread the reads/writes across as many spindles if I
> have any mirroring.
Not sure I fully understand what you're trying to say, but it seems like
it might still be worth trying my original idea of just turning all 80
disks into one giant RAID0/striped array and see how much more bandwidth
you get out of that. At a minimum it would allow you to utilize the
remaining spindles, which appear to be unused right now.
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?"
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2005-07-29 19:48:05|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-07-29 19:33:09|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends |