From: | Cosimo Streppone <cosimo(at)streppone(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
Cc: | Postgresql Performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: High end server and storage for a PostgreSQL OLTP system |
Date: | 2005-02-01 06:35:35 |
Message-ID: | 41FF2337.7070809@streppone.it |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:41:32PM +0100, Cosimo wrote:
>
> >2) The goal is to make the db handle 100 tps (something like
> > 100 users). What kind of server and storage should I provide?
>
> You might look at Opteron's, which theoretically have a higher data
> bandwidth. If you're doing anything data intensive, like a sort in
> memory, this could make a difference.
Would Opteron systems need 64-bit postgresql (and os, gcc, ...)
build to have that advantage?
> >4) Is it correct to suppose that multiple RAID 1 arrays
> > can provide the fastest I/O ?
> > I usually reserve one RAID1 array to db data directory,
> > one RAID1 array to pg_xlog directory and one RAID1 array
> > for os and application needs.
>
> RAID10 will be faster than RAID1.
Sorry Jim, by RAID10 you mean several raid1 arrays mounted on
different linux partitions? Or several raid1 arrays that
build up a raid0 array? In the latter case, who decides which
data goes in which raid1 array? Raid Adapter?
> The key factor to a high performance database is a high
> performance I/O system. If you look in the archives
> you'll find people running postgresql on 30 and 40
> drive arrays.
I'll do a search, thank you.
--
Cosimo
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-02-01 08:50:54 | Re: Very important choice |
Previous Message | Cosimo Streppone | 2005-02-01 06:26:53 | Re: High end server and storage for a PostgreSQL OLTP system |