David Lang wrote:
>> These boxes don't look like being designed for a DB server. The first
>> are very CPU bound, and the third may be a good choice for very large
>> amounts of streamed data, but not optimal for TP random access.
> I don't know what you mean when you say that the first ones are CPU
> bound, they have far more CPU then they do disk I/O
> however I will agree that they were not designed to be DB servers, they
> weren't. they happen to be the machines that I have available.
That was what I understood from the specs.
> they only have a pair of disks each, which would not be reasonable for
> most production DB uses, and they have far more CPU then is normally
> reccomended. So I'll have to run raid 0 instead of 0+1 (or not use raid)
> which would be unacceptable in a production environment, but can still
> give some useful info.
> the 5th box _was_ purchased to be a DB server, but one to store and
> analyse large amounts of log data, so large amounts of data storage were
> more important then raw DB performance (although we did max out the RAM
> at 16G to try and make up for it). it was a deliberate price/performance
> tradeoff. this machine ran ~$20k, but a similar capacity with SCSI
> drives would have been FAR more expensive (IIRC a multiple of 4x or more
> more expensive).
That was my understanding too. For this specific requirement, I'd
probably design the server the same way, and running OLAP benchmarks
against it sounds very reasonable.
>> Hopefully, when publicly visible benchmarks are performed, machines
>> are used that comply with common engineering knowledge, ignoring those
>> guys who still believe that sequential performance is the most
>> important issue on disk subsystems for DBMS.
> are you saying that I shouldn't do any benchmarks becouse the machines
> aren't what you would consider good enough?
> if so I disagree with you and think that benchmarks should be done on
> even worse machines, but should also be done on better machines. (are
> you volunteering to provide time on better machines for benchmarks?)
> not everyone will buy a lot of high-end hardware before they start
> useing a database. in fact most companies will start with a database on
> lower end hardware and then as their requirements grow they will move to
> better hardware. I'm willing to bet that what I have available is better
> then the starting point for most places.
> Postgres needs to work on the low end stuff as well as the high end
> stuff or people will write their app to work with things that DO run on
> low end hardware and they spend much more money then is needed to scale
> the hardware up rather then re-writing their app.
I agree that pgsql runs on low end stuff, but a dual Opteron with
2x15kSCSI isn't low end, is it? The CPU/IO performance isn't balanced
for the total cost, you probably could get a single CPU/6x15kRPM machine
for the same price delivering better TP performance in most scenarios.
Benchmarks should deliver results that are somewhat comparable. If
performed on machines that don't deliver a good CPU/IO power balance for
the type of DB load being tested, they're misleading and hardly usable
for comparision purposes, and even less for learning how to configure a
decent server since you might have to tweak some parameters in an
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Stephan Szabo||Date: 2005-11-27 15:48:01|
|Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (|
|Previous:||From: Steinar H. Gunderson||Date: 2005-11-27 11:51:55|
|Subject: Re: Open request for benchmarking input|