From: Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>
To: david@lang.hm
Cc: Tobias Brox <tobias@nordicbet.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SAN vs Internal Disks
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:55:51 -0500
Message-ID: <20070911205550.GA38801@decibel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071400430.19737@asgard.lang.hm>
References: <a199704d0709060535q6fea139aq2e3863e685555b0d@mail.gmail.com>
<dcc563d10709060925o6f11f632sbfbc2b64530ae80d@mail.gmail.com>
<a199704d0709061003u71d536fbh9d71ed095dfe16b@mail.gmail.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.64.0709062354040.28915@westnet.com>
<20070907100446.GE1795@mathom.us>
<20070907103341.GC20896@oppetid.no>
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071400430.19737@asgard.lang.hm>
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 02:10:32PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
> >3. Easy to set up "warm standby" functionality. (Then again, if the
> >postgres server fails miserably, it's likely to be due to a disk
> >crash).
>
> and if postgres dies for some other reason the image on disk needs repair,
> unless you script stopping postgres when the SAN does it's snapshots,
> those snapshots are not going to be that good. the problems are useually
> repairable, but that makes starting your warm spare harder.
Uh, the "image" you get from a PITR backup "needs repair" too. There's
absolutely nothing wrong with using a SAN or filesystem snapshot as a
backup mechanism, as long as it's a true snapshot, and it includes *all*
PostgreSQL data (everything under $PGDATA as well as all tablespaces).
Also, to reply to someone else's email... there is one big reason to use
a SAN over direct storage: you can do HA that results in 0 data loss.
Good SANs are engineered to be highly redundant, with multiple
controllers, PSUs, etc, so that the odds of losing the SAN itself are
very, very low. The same isn't true with DAS.
But unless you need that kind of HA recovery, I'd tend to stay away from
SANs.
BTW, if you need *serious* bandwidth, look at things like Sun's
"thumper" (I know there's at least one other company that makes
something similar). 40-48 drives in a single 4U chassis == lots of
throughput.
Finally, if you do get a SAN, make sure and benchmark it. I've seen more
than one case of a SAN that wasn't getting anywhere near the performance
it should be, even with a simple dd test.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: decibel@decibel.org, david@lang.hm, tobias@nordicbet.com
Subject: Re: SAN vs Internal Disks
In-Reply-To: <20070911205550.GA38801@decibel.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
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