| From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: table spaces |
| Date: | 2013-03-13 15:24:53 |
| Message-ID: | 51409A45.6040203@hogranch.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 3/13/2013 6:26 AM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> I have to tell you though, we had a server with twelve spindles three
> years ago, and it barely kept up with our transaction load. We had two
> hot spares, a RAID-1, and 8-disks in a RAID-10. Several pgbench tests
> back then showed that our RAID-10 could only adequately serve 1800TPS
> directly, and we needed at least 6000. Ultimately, it lead to us
> switching to NVRAM (SSD) for high TPS data, and creating a tablespace
> on a RAID-10 for archived or low-priority data.
I've got a server in my lab we use for benchmarking and testing that has
a 20 disk raid10 of 15k 150gb SAS2 drives. is faaassssst. I don't
remember the IOPS numbers off the top of my head but 4 SSD's in a raid0
were only a little bit faster at heavy OLTP small transaction
write-intensive operations.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Jaskiewicz | 2013-03-13 15:30:32 | Re: table spaces |
| Previous Message | Thor Michael Støre | 2013-03-13 14:58:53 | Re: SELECT 1 = ANY (SELECT ARRAY[1, 2, 3]) -> ERROR: operator does not exist: integer = integer[] ? |