X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2716C9DC9C5 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:41:12 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41670-05 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:41:14 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D20DB9DC9FF for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:41:09 -0400 (AST) Received: from larry.aptalaska.net (larry.aptalaska.net [64.186.96.3]) by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAEF55AF06A for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:41:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.98.9] (rdbck-static-287.palmer.mtaonline.net [64.4.232.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by larry.aptalaska.net (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jBK0f9t9008099 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:41:10 -0900 Message-ID: <43A75325.7070006@aptalaska.net> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:41:09 -0900 From: Matthew Schumacher User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SAN/NAS options References: <20051216221909.GU53809@pervasive.com> In-Reply-To: <20051216221909.GU53809@pervasive.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Bayes: Learn: ham X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 64.186.96.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/467 X-Sequence-Number: 16288 Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:56:10AM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote: > You'll note that I'm being somewhat driven by my OS of choice, FreeBSD. > >>Unlike Solaris or other commercial offerings, there is no nice volume >>management available. While I'd love to keep managing a dozen or so >>FreeBSD boxes, I could be persuaded to go to Solaris x86 if the volume >>management really shines and Postgres performs well on it. > > > Have you looked at vinum? It might not qualify as a true volume manager, > but it's still pretty handy. I am looking very closely at purchasing a SANRAD Vswitch 2000, a Nexsan SATABoy with SATA disks, and the Qlogic iscsi controller cards. Nexsan claims up to 370MB/s sustained per controller and 44,500 IOPS but I'm not sure if that is good or bad. It's certainly faster than the LSI megaraid controller I'm using now with a raid 1 mirror. The sanrad box looks like it saves money in that you don't have to by controller cards for everything, but for I/O intensive servers such as the database server, I would end up buying an iscsi controller card anyway. At this point I'm not sure what the best solution is. I like the idea of having logical disks available though iscsi because of how flexible it is, but I really don't want to spend $20k (10 for the nexsan and 10 for the sanrad) and end up with poor performance. On other advantage to iscsi is that I can go completely diskless on my servers and boot from iscsi which means that I don't have to have spare disks for each host, now I just have spare disks for the nexsan chassis. So the question becomes: has anyone put postgres on an iscsi san, and if so how did it perform? schu