Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

From: William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Date: 2005-11-16 12:51:49
Message-ID: dlfa10$2b2n$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Alex Turner wrote:
> Not at random access in RAID 10 they aren't, and anyone with their
> head screwed on right is using RAID 10.  The 9500S will still beat the
> Areca cards at RAID 10 database access patern.

The max 256MB onboard for 3ware cards is disappointing though. While 
good enough for 95% of cases, there's that 5% that could use a gig or 
two of onboard ram for ultrafast updates. For example, I'm specing out 
an upgrade to our current data processing server. Instead of the 
traditional 6xFast-Server-HDs, we're gonna go for broke and do 
32xConsumer-HDs. This will give us mega I/O bandwidth but we're 
vulnerable to random access since consumer-grade HDs don't have the RPMs 
or the queueing-smarts. This means we're very dependent on the 
controller using onboard RAM to do I/O scheduling. 256MB divided over 
4/6/8 drives -- OK. 256MB divided over 32 drives -- ugh, the HD's 
buffers are bigger than the RAM alotted to it.

At least this is how it seems it would work from thinking through all 
the factors. Unfortunately, I haven't found anybody else who has gone 
this route and reported their results so I guess we're the guinea pig.

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: William YuDate: 2005-11-16 13:08:50
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( 5TB)
Previous:From: Joost KraaijeveldDate: 2005-11-16 10:17:05
Subject: Re: Performance PG 8.0 on dual opteron / 4GB / 3ware

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group