Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D1B1337B56 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:29:04 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70226-03 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:28:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp.iplink.net (smtp.iplink.net [192.139.81.186]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B031337B53 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:28:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from lework.alteeve.com (fw.iplink.net [192.139.81.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.iplink.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A092CAD3257; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:28:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4CE3F498.3060004@alteeve.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:28:24 -0500 From: Digimer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101103 Fedora/1.0-0.33.b2pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Comeau Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: How to achieve sustained disk performance of 1.25 GB write for 5 mins References: 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-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201011/285 X-Sequence-Number: 41309 On 11/17/2010 09:26 AM, Eric Comeau wrote: > This is not directly a PostgreSQL performance question but I'm hoping > some of the chaps that build high IO PostgreSQL servers on here can help. > > We build file transfer acceleration s/w (and use PostgreSQL as our > database) but we need to build a test server that can handle a sustained > write throughput of 1,25 GB for 5 mins. > > Why this number, because we want to push a 10 Gbps network link for 5-8 > mins, 10Gbps = 1.25 GB write, and would like to drive it for 5-8 mins > which would be 400-500 GB. > > Note this is just a "test" server therefore it does not need fault > tolerance. > > Thanks in advance, > Eric > Off hand, I would suggest: 8x http://www.kingston.com/ssd/vplus100.asp (180MB/sec sustained write) stripped (RAID 0, you did say that you don't care about safety). That should be 1.44GB/sec write, minus overhead. 1x http://www.lsi.com/channel/products/raid_controllers/3ware_9690sa8i/index.html RAID card (note that it's the internal port model, despite the image) 4x http://usa.chenbro.com/corporatesite/products_detail.php?sku=114 (for mounting the drives) That would be about the minimum I should expect you can pay to get that kind of performance. Others are free to dis/agree. :) -- Digimer E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org