On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Alexander Priem wrote:
> The machine is going to be used for a pretty large database (well over 100
> tables with some of them containing over a million records from the start,
> number of tables and records will grow (much?) larger in the future). This
> database is going to be used by a pretty large number of employees. The
> number of concurrent users will vary between 1 - 100 or so, depending on the
> time of day etc. This will be a database containing client and supplier data
> as well as product descriptions and prices/ingredients/labels/brands etc.
> Database use will include lots of SELECTS but also lots of INSERTS/UPDATES,
> i.e. the database will be pretty active during bussiness hours...
> I think you (Scott and Will) are right when you say that NAS devices are not
> ideal for this kind of thing. I have been thinking about the hardware
> configuration for this machine for some time now (and had a lot of hints
> through this list already) and decided to go for a SCSI RAID config after
> all. The extra costs will be worth it :)
> The machine I have in mind now is like this :
> Dell PowerEdge 1750 machine with Intel Xeon CPU at 3 GHz and 4 GB of RAM.
> This machine will contain a PERC4/Di RAID controller with 128MB of battery
> backed cache memory. The O/S and logfiles will be placed on a RAID-1 setup
> of two 36Gb SCSI-U320 drives (15.000rpm). Database data will be placed on a
> Dell PowerVault 220S rack-module containing six 36Gb SCSI-U320 drives
> (15.000rpm) in a RAID-10 setup. This PowerVault will be connected to the DB
> server via a SCSI cable...
Funny, we're looking at the same basic type of system here, but with a
Perc3/CI controller. We have a local supplier who gives us machines with
a 3 year warranty and looks to be $1,000 to $2,000 lower than the Dell.
We're just going to run two 73 Gig drives in a RAID1 to start with, with
battery backed RAM.
So that brings up my question, which is better, the Perc4 or Perc3
controllers, and what's the difference between them? I find Dell's
tendency to hide other people's hardware behind their own model numbers
mildly bothersome, as it makes it hard to comparison shop.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Richard Huxton||Date: 2003-10-21 15:56:50|
|Subject: Re: Tuning for mid-size server|
|Previous:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2003-10-21 15:02:25|
|Subject: Re: SRFs ... no performance penalty?|