Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE692E004F for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:47:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83938-01 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:47:31 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 01:40:36.535412 by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from viefep14-int.chello.at (viefep18-int.chello.at [213.46.255.22]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8FF42E003E for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:47:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (really [80.99.119.182]) by viefep14-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.7.08.02.02 201-2186-121-104-20070414) with ESMTP id <20080328104728.KEFT1247.viefep14-int.chello.at@[192.168.1.103]>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:47:28 +0100 Message-ID: <47ECCCBF.40908@shopzeus.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:47:27 +0100 From: Laszlo Nagy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Claus Guttesen , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Planning a new server - help needed References: <47ECB4F6.1040901@shopzeus.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/514 X-Sequence-Number: 29468 > I guess you mean postgresql 8.3.1? :-) > Yep. Sorry. >> Question 3. FreeBSD 7.0 can use the ZFS file system. I suspect that UFS >> 2 + soft updates will be better, but I'm not sure. Which is better? >> > > I'd stick with ufs2 atm. There are some issues with zfs which probably > have been ironed out by now but ufs2 has been deployed for a longer > time. Performance-wise they are about the same. > Thank you. I suspected the same but it was good to get positive confirmation. >> Question 4. How to make the partitions? This is the hardest question. >> Here is my plan: >> >> - the OS resides on 2 disks, RAID 1 >> - the databases should go on 8 disks, RAID 0 + 1 >> > > If you have enough disks raid-6 should perform almost as good as raid > 1+0. Hmm, I have heard that RAID 1 or RAID 1 + 0 should be used for databases, never RAID 5. I know nothing about RAID 6. I guess I must accept your suggestion since you have more experience than I have. :-) Obviously, it would be easier to manage a single RAID 6 array. > I've setup 11 disks in raid-6 plus one hotspare so I can get more > space out of it. "Enough disks" are approx. eight and up. > The RAID controller that I have selected can only handle 8 disks. I guess I need to find a different one with 16 channels and use more disks. So are you saying that with all disks in a bigger RAID 6 array, I will get the most out of the hardware? In that case, I'll try to get a bit more money from the management and build RAID 6 with 12 disks. I also feel that I need to use a separate RAID 1 array (I prefer gmirror) for the base system. Thanks, Laszlo