Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F159FB62B for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:01:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11130-06-2 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:00:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-130.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2ECB9FB2B3 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:32:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.95] (or-67-76-146-141.sta.embarqhsd.net [67.76.146.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9LHWiwV010572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:32:45 -0700 Message-ID: <453A59E0.2060104@commandprompt.com> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:33:20 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060918) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Philips CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Optimizing disk throughput on quad Opteron References: <20061021154305.48104.qmail@web57806.mail.re3.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20061021154305.48104.qmail@web57806.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.4, clamav-milter version 0.88.4 on projects.commandprompt.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (lists.commandprompt.com [192.168.2.159]); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.135 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/462 X-Sequence-Number: 21591 > I heard some say that the transaction log should be on > it's own array, others say it doesn't hurt to have it > on the same array as the OS. Is it really worthwhile > to put it on it's own array? > > Can you guys see any glaring bottlenecks in my layout? > Any other suggestions to offer (throw in more > controllers, different RAID layout, etc.)? Our budget > limit is $50k. You should easily be able to fit in 50k since you already have the storage device. I would suggest the following: 1. Throw in as much RAM as you can. 2. Yes put the transaction logs on a separate array. There are a couple of reasons for this: 1. transaction logs are written sequentially so a RAID 1 is enough 2. You don't have to use a journaled fs for the transaction logs so it is really fast. 3. IIRC the MSA 30 can take 14 drives. Make sure you put in all 14 drives and delegate two of them to hot spare duty. I actually wonder if you would be better off putting the indexes on tablespace A and use your core data set on the larger storage works array... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > Thanks! > > P.S. I know there was a very similar thread started by > Ben Suffolk recently, I'd still like to have your > "eyes of experience" look at my proposed layout :-) > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate