Re: scaling up postgres

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: John Vincent <pgsql-performance(at)lusis(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: scaling up postgres
Date: 2006-06-13 22:45:23
Message-ID: 20060613224523.GL34196@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 06:21:21PM -0400, John Vincent wrote:
> On 6/13/06, Jim C. Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 05:40:58PM -0400, John Vincent wrote:
> >> Maybe from a postgresql perspective the cpus may be useless but the
> >memory
> >> on the pSeries can't be beat. We've been looking at running our
> >warehouse
> >> (PGSQL) in a LoP lpar but I wasn't able to find a LoP build of 8.1.
> >
> >Probably just because not many people have access to that kind of
> >hardware. Have you tried building on Linux on Power?
>
>
> Actually it's on my radar. I was looking for a precompiled build first (we
> actually checked the Pervasive and Bizgres sites first since we're
> considering a support contract) before going the self-compiled route. When I
> didn't see a pre-compiled build available, I started looking at the
> developer archives and got a little worried that I wouldn't want to base my
> job on a self-built Postgres on a fairly new (I'd consider Power 5 fairly
> new) platform.

Well, pre-compiled isn't going to make much of a difference
stability-wise. What you will run into is that very few people are
running PostgreSQL on your hardware, so it's possible you'd run into
some odd corner cases. I think it's pretty unlikely you'd lose data, but
you could end up with performance-related issues.

If you can, it'd be great to do some testing on that hardware to see if
you can break PostgreSQL.

> This is true. In our case I couldn't get the approval for the new hardware
> since we had two x445 boxes sitting there doing nothing (I wanted them for
> our VMware environment personally). Another sticking point is finding a
> vendor that will provide a hardware support contract similar to what we have
> with our existing IBM hardware (24x7x4). Since IBM has f-all for Opteron
> based systems and we've sworn off Dell, I was pretty limited. HP was able to
> get in on a pilot program and we're considering them now for future hardware
> purchases but beyond Dell/IBM/HP, there's not much else that can provide the
> kind of hardware support turn-around we need.

What about Sun?

> >We've been thrilled with the performance of our DB2 systems that run on
> >> AIX/Power 5 but since the DB2 instance memory is limited to 18GB, we've
> >got
> >> two 86GB p570s sitting there being under utilized.

BTW, in a past life we moved a DB2 database off of Xeons and onto
RS/6000s with Power4. The difference was astounding.
--
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

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-06-13 22:47:59 Re: Solaris shared_buffers anomaly?
Previous Message Shaun Thomas 2006-06-13 22:41:06 Re: Confirmation of bad query plan generated by 7.4