Mikael Carneholm wrote:
>> There are two SCSI U320 buses, with seven bays on each. I don't know
> what the overhead of SCSI is, but you're obviously not going to get >
> 490MB/s for each set of seven even if the FC could do it.
You should be able to get close to 300Mb/s on each SCSI bus - provided
the PCI bus on the motherboard is 64-bit and runs at 133Mhz or better
(64-bit and 66Mhz give you a 524Mb/s limit).
>> Of course your database may not spend all day doing sequential scans
> one at a time over 14 disks, so it doesn't necessarily matter...
Yeah, it depends on the intended workload, but at some point most
databases end up IO bound... so you really want to ensure the IO system
is as capable as possible IMHO.
> That's probably true, but *knowing* that the max seq scan speed is that
> high gives you some confidence (true or fake) that the hardware will be
> sufficient the next 2 years or so. So, if dual 2GBit FC:s still don't
> deliver more than 200Mb/s, what does?
Most modern PCI-X or PCIe RAID cards will do better than 200Mb/s (e.g.
3Ware 9550SX will do ~800Mb/s).
By way of comparison my old PIII with a Promise TX4000 plus 4 IDE drives
will do 215Mb/s...so being throttled to 200Mb/s on modern hardware seems
unwise to me.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Richard Huxton||Date: 2006-04-25 09:40:08|
|Subject: Re: security for row level but not based on Database user's|
|Previous:||From: Steve Atkins||Date: 2006-04-24 23:40:16|
|Subject: Re: ip address data type|