Message-ID: <46E78EBE.8050501@mirasol.co.za>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:01:18 +0200
From: Willo van der Merwe <willo@mirasol.co.za>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Decibel!" <decibel@decibel.org>
CC: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>,  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Hardware spec
References: <46DFA43C.2030201@mirasol.co.za> <46DFB79E.9040407@archonet.com>
	<46DFC7D6.2080803@mirasol.co.za>
	<20070911203554.GZ38801@decibel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070911203554.GZ38801@decibel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Decibel! wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:26:46AM +0200, Willo van der Merwe wrote:
>   
>> Richard Huxton wrote:
>>     
>>> Willo van der Merwe wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> I'm have the rare opportunity to spec the hardware for a new database
>>>> server. It's going to replace an older one, driving a social networking
>>>> web application. The current server (a quad opteron with 4Gb of RAM and
>>>> 80Gb fast SCSI RAID10) is coping with an average load of ranging between
>>>> 1.5 and 3.5.
>>>>
>>>> The new machine spec I have so far:
>>>>         
>>> What's the limiting factor on your current machine - disk, memory, cpup?
>>>       
>> I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I'm not sure. The reason we're 
>> changing machines is that we might be changing ISPs and we're renting / 
>> leasing the machines from the ISP.
>>     
>
> Get yourself the ability to benchmark your application. This is
> invaluable^W a requirement for any kind of performance tuning.
>   
I'm pretty happy with the performance of the database at this stage. 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK a load of 3.5 on a quad is not 
overloading it. It also seem to scale well, so if application's demand 
increases I see a minimal increase in database server load.

I was just looking for some pointers as to where to go to ITO hardware 
for the future, as I can now spec a new  machine. I mean is it really 
worth while going for one of those RAID controllers with the battery 
backed cache, for instance. If so, are there any specific ones to look 
out for? Which is better RAID 5, a large RAID 10 or smaller RAID 10's? 
Should I bother with RAID at all?