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

Re: hardware performance and some more

From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: hardware performance and some more
Date: 2003-07-24 13:09:26
Message-ID: 3F2027DE.15489.A17C705@localhost (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 24 Jul 2003 at 15:54, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:

> The questions for this explanation are:
>       1 - Can we use postgresql within clustered environment?
>       2 - if the answer is yes, in which method can we use postgresql within a cluster?
>       active - passive or active - active?

Coupled with linux-HA( See http://linux-ha.org) heartbeat service, it *should* 
be possible to run postgresql in active-passive clustering.

If postgresql supported read-only database so that several nodes could read off 
a single disk but only one could update that, a sort of active-active should be 
possible as well. But postgresql can not have a read only database. That would 
be a handy addition in such cases..
 
> Now, the second question is related to the performance of the database. Assuming we have a 
> dell's poweredge 6650 with 4 x 2.8 Ghz Xeon processors having 2 MB of cache for each, with the 
> main memory of lets say 32 GB. We can either use a small SAN from EMC or we can put all disks 
> into the machines with the required raid confiuration.
> 
> We will install RedHat Advanced Server 2.1 to the machine as the operating system and postgresql as 
> the database server. We have a database having 25 millions records  having the length of 250 bytes 
> on average for each record. And there are 1000 operators accessing the database concurrently. The main 
> operation on the database (about 95%) is select rather than insert, so do you have any idea about 
> the performance of the system? 

Assumig 325 bytes per tuple(250 bytes field+24-28 byte header+varchar fields) 
gives 25 tuples per 8K page, there would be 8GB of data. This configuration 
could fly with 12-16GB of RAM. After all data is read that is. You can cut down 
on other requirements as well. May be a 2x opteron with 16GB RAMmight be a 
better fit but check out how much CPU cache it has.

A grep -rwn across data directory would fill the disk cache pretty well..:-)

HTH

Bye
 Shridhar

--
Egotism, n:	Doing the New York Times crossword puzzle with a pen.Egotist, n:	A 
person of low taste, more interested in himself than me.		-- Ambrose Bierce, 
"The Devil's Dictionary"


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Roman FailDate: 2003-07-24 15:27:31
Subject: Re: hardware performance and some more
Previous:From: Jörg SchulzDate: 2003-07-24 06:06:22
Subject: Re: different query plan for same select

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