Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Server Hardware Configuration

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: "Michael D(dot) Sofka" <sofkam(at)rpi(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Server Hardware Configuration
Date: 2005-11-21 17:12:25
Message-ID: 20051121171225.GU19279@pervasive.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:41:36AM -0500, Michael D. Sofka wrote:
> >I suggest looking at your current bottleneck first.
> >It's likely to be the most cost-efficient route out.
> 
> I/O is our bottleneck.  The machine is not CPU loaded.  And, in fact,
> our current performance is good.  The machine upgrade is planned with a
> service upgrade.  Current hardware is old, and so getting more expensive
> to support.  We also anticipate service growth (read, more spam), and
> so are planning accordingly.

Which, as I mentioned, is why RAID5 is not a good solution if you're
doing any writes at all.

You're talking about a 16G database that you expect to grow to 64G. That
would fit happily in a RAID1 (mirror) of two SCSI 72G drives. I haven't
priced that kind of stuff out recently, but I believe you're looking at
$300-$500. If that doesn't provide enough performance, go to a RAID10
and add more drives. If you're doing much writing at all, spring for a
battery-backed controller so you can enable write caching.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Jeff FrostDate: 2005-11-21 18:21:15
Subject: Re: Batch Files
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2005-11-21 16:59:24
Subject: Re: Server Hardware Configuration

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group