pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archivehelp / color / mirror / Atom feed
Storage Options 2+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* Storage Options @ 2006-08-21 21:50 Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Jeff Davis @ 2006-08-21 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-performance I am trying to decide what kind of storage options to use for a pair of good database servers, a primary and a read-only that can be a failover. Here is what I'm thinking so far: (1) We have a nice NetApp that can do iSCSI. It has a large (multi-GB) battery-backed cache so it could potentially perform the transactions at a very high rate. However there are many other applications accessing the NetApp over NFS, so I am not sure what performance to expect. Any suggestions about using network storage like this for the database? Will the database make huge demands on the NetApp, and force my department spend huge amounts on new NetApp hardware? (2) I read with interest this thread: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-08/msg00164.php Is there any consensus on whether to do WAL on a RAID-1 and PGDATA on a RAID-10 versus everything on a RAID-10? How does the number of disks I have affect this decision (I will probably have 4-8 disks per server). Some of the applications I initially need to support will be a high volume of simple transactions without many tablescans, if that helps. However, I expect that these servers will need to serve many needs. Any other suggestions are appreciated. Is there a common place to look for hardware suggestions (like a postgresql hardware FAQ)? Regards, Jeff Davis ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Storage Options @ 2006-08-22 10:02 Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> parent: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Michael Stone @ 2006-08-22 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-performance On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:50:51PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >the NetApp over NFS, so I am not sure what performance to expect. Any >suggestions about using network storage like this for the database? Don't. Unless you're using a very small (toy-scale) database, the netapp storage is way too expensive for the kind of usage you see with a database application. You're much better off buying much cheaper storage twice and using a database replication solution than either choking a really expensive netapp or getting lousy performance from the same. The netapps have their niche, but database storage isn't it. (Peformance in general really isn't it--the advantages are managability, snapshotting, and cross-platform data exchange. It may be that those factors are important enough to make that a good solution for your particular situation, but they're generally not particularly relevant in the postgres space.) >Is there any consensus on whether to do WAL on a RAID-1 and PGDATA on a >RAID-10 versus everything on a RAID-10? How does the number of disks I >have affect this decision (I will probably have 4-8 disks per server). You can't get a good answer without testing with your actual data. I'd suspect that with such a low number of disks you're better off with a single array, assuming that you have a good bbu raid controller and assuming that you're not doing write-mostly transaction work. But testing with your actual workload is the only way to really know. Mike Stone ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-08-22 10:02 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-08-21 21:50 Storage Options Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> 2006-08-22 10:02 ` Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox