Message-ID: <015001c718b6$8d7b96f0$3cb16956@alex>
From: "Alexandru Coseru" <alexandru.coseru@totaltelecom.ro>
To: "Sven Geisler" <sgeisler@aeccom.com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <19ab0ccd0612030711s70a3e095hceb69509cbd41597@mail.gmail.com>
	<021f01c716ef$3f5701d0$647ba8c0@jonathanlaptop>
	<19ab0ccd0612030830t68d9a7ddoba02f060fd9cdea4@mail.gmail.com>
	<00e601c71700$86f23e90$c7646b56@alex> <45754277.5090407@aeccom.com>
Subject: Re: Hardware advice
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 23:44:33 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello..

Thanks for the advices..

Actually , i'm waiting for the clovertown  to show up on the market...

Regards
    Alex

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Geisler" <sgeisler@aeccom.com>
To: "Alexandru Coseru" <alexandru.coseru@totaltelecom.ro>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Hardware advice


> Hi Alexandru,
>
> Alexandru Coseru schrieb:
>> [...]
>> Question 1:
>>    The RAID layout should be:
>>            a)  2 hdd in raid 1 for system and pg_xlog  and 6 hdd in
>> raid10 for data ?
>>            b)  8 hdd in raid10  for all ?
>>            c)  2 hdd in raid1 for system  , 2 hdd in raid1 for pg_xlog ,
>> 4 hdd in raid10 for data ?
>>    Obs: I'm going for setup a)  , but i want to hear your thoughts as 
>> well.
>
> This depends on you data size. I think, option a and c are good.
> The potential bottleneck may the RAID 1 for pg_xlog if you have huge
> amount of updates and insert.
> What is about another setup
>
> 4 hdd in RAID 10 for System and pg_xlog - System partitions are normally
> not in heavy use and pg_xlog should be fast for writing.
> 4 hdd in RAID 10 for data.
>
>>
>>
>> Question 2:  (Don't want to start a flame here..... but here is goes)
>>        What filesystem should i run for data ?      ext3 or xfs ?
>>        The tables have ~ 15.000 rel_pages each.  The biggest table has
>> now over 30.000 pages.
>
> We have a database running with 60,000+ tables. The tables size is
> between a few kByte for the small tables and up to 30 GB for the largest
> one. We had no issue with ext3 in the past.
>
>>
>> Question 3:
>>        The block size in postgresql is 8kb.      The strip size in the
>> raid ctrl is 64k.
>>         Should i increase the pgsql block size to 16 or 32 or even 64k ?
>
> You should keep in mind that the file system has also a block size. Ext3
> has as maximum 4k.
> I would set up the partitions aligned to the stripe size to prevent
> unaligned reads. I guess, you can imagine that a larger block size of
> postgresql may also end up in unaligned reads because the file system
> has a smaller block size.
>
> RAID Volume and File system set up
> 1. Make all partitions aligned to the RAID strip size.
>   The first partition should be start at 128 kByte.
>   You can do this with fdisk. after you created the partition switch
>   to the expert mode (type x) and modify the begin of the partition
>   (type b). You should change this value to 128 (default is 63).
>   All other partition should also start on a multiple of 128 kByte.
>
> 2. Give the file system a hint that you work with larger block sizes.
>   Ext3: mke2fs -b 4096 -j -R stride=2 /dev/sda1 -L LABEL
>   I made a I/O test with PostgreSQL on a RAID system with stripe size
>   of 64kByte and block size of 8 kByte in the RAID system.
>   Stride=2 was the best value.
>
>
> PS: You should have a second XEON in your budget plan.
>
> Sven.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.7/569 - Release Date: 12/5/2006
>
>