X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E649FA430 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 18:50:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42090-01 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 18:50:32 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com [63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AB29FA383 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 18:50:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com ([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 21:50:30 +0000 Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com; 09 Aug 2006 16:50:30 -0500 Subject: Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000 From: Scott Marlowe To: "Jim C. Nasby" Cc: "Thomas F. O'Connell" , "Joshua D.Drake" , Kenji Morishige , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20060809213543.GV40481@pervasive.com> References: <20060808204354.GN29379@juniper.net> <44D906E1.7010405@commandprompt.com> <9EE66C7F-0B04-4472-9EBD-CD567AC9EA1D@sitening.com> <44D90FFE.7010807@commandprompt.com> <82C06632-148B-4489-90EB-BBB8A6BD1159@sitening.com> <1155136527.20252.90.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <20060809213543.GV40481@pervasive.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1155160230.20252.124.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:50:30 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.105 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, SPF_PASS, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/167 X-Sequence-Number: 20352 On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:35, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > Actually, the BIGGEST win comes when you've got battery backed cache on > > your RAID controller. In fact, I'd spend money on a separate RAID > > controller for xlog with its own cache hitting a simple mirror set > > before I'd spring for more drives on pg_xlog. The battery backed cache > > on the pg_xlog likely wouldn't need to be big, just there and set to > > write-back. > > > > Then put all the rest of your cash into disks on a big RAID 10 config, > > and as big of a battery backed cache as you can afford for it and memory > > for the machine. > > Actually, my (limited) testing has show than on a good battery-backed > controller, there's no penalty to leaving pg_xlog in with the rest of > PGDATA. This means that the OP could pile all 8 drives into a RAID10, > which would almost certainly do better than 6+2. I've seen a few posts that said that before. I wonder if there's a point where the single RAID array / controller would get saturated and a second one would help. I think most of the testing I've seen so far has been multiple RAID arrays under the same controller, hasn't it? > Note that some controllers (such as 3ware) need to periodically test the > life of the BBU, and they disable write caching when they do so, which > would tank performance. ugh, that's a scary thing. Can you at least schedule it?