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

Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

From: Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Adam Weisberg <Aweisberg(at)seiu1199(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Date: 2005-11-16 05:16:58
Message-ID: 33c6269f0511152116s4483af82s91c711b1b902da14@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Not at random access in RAID 10 they aren't, and anyone with their
head screwed on right is using RAID 10.  The 9500S will still beat the
Areca cards at RAID 10 database access patern.

Alex.

On 11/15/05, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
> Luke,
>
> Have you tried the areca cards, they are slightly faster yet.
>
> Dave
>
> On 15-Nov-05, at 7:09 AM, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree - you can get a very good one from www.acmemicro.com or
>
> www.rackable.com with 8x 400GB SATA disks and the new 3Ware 9550SX SATA
>
> RAID controller for about $6K with two Opteron 272 CPUs and 8GB of RAM
>
> on a Tyan 2882 motherboard.  We get about 400MB/s sustained disk read
>
> performance on these (with tuning) on Linux using the xfs filesystem,
>
> which is one of the most critical factors for large databases.
>
>
>
>
> Note that you want to have your DBMS use all of the CPU and disk channel
>
> bandwidth you have on each query, which takes a parallel database like
>
> Bizgres MPP to achieve.
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2005-11-16 06:07:53
Subject: Re: Performance PG 8.0 on dual opteron / 4GB / 3ware
Previous:From: Alex TurnerDate: 2005-11-16 05:15:36
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

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