Re: new server I/O setup

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fernando Hevia <fhevia(at)ip-tel(dot)com(dot)ar>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: new server I/O setup
Date: 2010-01-14 21:22:09
Message-ID: dcc563d11001141322q5b84929frc2f85a491829c1b5@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Fernando Hevia <fhevia(at)ip-tel(dot)com(dot)ar> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've just received this new server:
> 1 x XEON 5520 Quad Core w/ HT
> 8 GB RAM 1066 MHz
> 16 x SATA II Seagate Barracuda 7200.12
> 3ware 9650SE w/ 256MB BBU
>
> It will run an Ubuntu 8.04 LTS Postgres 8.4 dedicated server. Its database
> will be getting between 100 and 1000 inserts per second (those are call
> detail records of ~300 bytes each) of around 20 clients (voip gateways).
> Other activity is mostly read-only and some non time-critical writes
> generally at off peak hours.
>
> So my first choice was:
>
> 2 discs in RAID 1 for OS + pg_xlog partitioned with ext2.
> 12 discs in RAID 10 for postgres data, sole partition with ext3.
> 2 spares
>
>
> My second choice is:
>
> 4 discs in RAID 10 for OS + pg_xlog partitioned with ext2
> 10 discs in RAID 10 for postgres, ext3
> 2 spares.
>
> The bbu caché will be enabled for both raid volumes.
>
> I justified my first choice in that WAL writes are sequentially and OS
> pretty much are too, so a RAID 1 probably would hold ground against a 12
> disc RAID 10 with random writes.

I think your first choice is right. I use the same basic setup with
147G 15k5 SAS seagate drives and the pg_xlog / OS partition is almost
never close to the same level of utilization, according to iostat, as
the main 12 disk RAID-10 array is. We may have to buy a 16 disk array
to keep up with load, and it would be all main data storage, and our
pg_xlog main drive pair would be just fine.

> I don't know in advance if I will manage to gather enough time to try out
> both setups so I wanted to know what you guys think of these 2
> alternatives. Do you think a single RAID 1 will become a bottleneck? Feel
> free to suggest a better setup I hadn't considered, it would be most
> welcome.

For 12 disks, most likely not. Especially since your load is mostly
small randomish writes, not a bunch of big multi-megabyte records or
anything, so the random access performance on the 12 disk RAID-10
should be your limiting factor.

> Pd: any clue if hdparm works to deactive the disks write cache even if they
> are behind the 3ware controller?

Not sure, but I'm pretty sure the 3ware card already does the right
thing and turns off the write caching.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message fkater@googlemail.com 2010-01-14 21:23:07 Re: Inserting 8MB bytea: just 25% of disk perf used?
Previous Message Craig James 2010-01-14 21:19:05 Re: Massive table (500M rows) update nightmare