Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E46BB5DBBF for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:49:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56994-07 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:49:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:42.805137 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mxtip01-umsystem-out.um.umsystem.edu (mxtip01-umsystem-out.um.umsystem.edu [209.106.229.49]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A605B5D803 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:49:34 -0300 (ADT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAE5sIE7RauUo/2dsb2JhbABThEijH3e6LIgSiHyBK4QAgQ8Eh1SQEwmLZw Received: from um-tsmtpout1.um.umsystem.edu ([209.106.229.40]) by mxtip01-missouri-out.um.umsystem.edu with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2011 11:39:49 -0500 Received: from um-tsmtpout1.um.umsystem.edu ([209.106.229.35]) by um-tsmtpout1.um.umsystem.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:39:49 -0500 Received: from [128.206.129.163] ([128.206.129.163]) by um-tsmtpout1.um.umsystem.edu over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:39:49 -0500 Message-ID: <4E206D55.2090805@missouri.edu> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:39:49 -0500 From: Robert Schnabel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Smith CC: chris , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Hardware advice for scalable warehouse db References: <4E1FE7ED.90909@2ndquadrant.com> In-Reply-To: <4E1FE7ED.90909@2ndquadrant.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jul 2011 16:39:49.0704 (UTC) FILETIME=[D0686480:01CC430D] 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: 201107/158 X-Sequence-Number: 44370 On 7/15/2011 2:10 AM, Greg Smith wrote: > chris wrote: >> My employer is a university with little funds and we have to find a >> cheap way to scale for the next 3 years, so the SAN seems a good chance >> to us. > A SAN is rarely ever the cheapest way to scale anything; you're paying > extra for reliability instead. > > >> I was thinking to put the WAL and the indexes on the local disks, and >> the rest on the SAN. If funds allow, we might downgrade the disks to >> SATA and add a 50 GB SATA SSD for the WAL (SAS/SATA mixup not possible). >> > If you want to keep the bulk of the data on the SAN, this is a > reasonable way to go, performance-wise. But be aware that losing the > WAL means your database is likely corrupted. That means that much of > the reliability benefit of the SAN is lost in this configuration. > > >> Any experiences with iSCSI vs. Fibre >> Channel for SANs and PostgreSQL? If the SAN setup sucks, do you see a >> cheap alternative how to connect as many as 16 x 2TB disks as DAS? >> > I've never heard anyone recommend iSCSI if you care at all about > performance, while FC works fine for this sort of job. The physical > dimensions of 3.5" drives makes getting 16 of them in one reasonably > sized enclosure normally just out of reach. But a Dell PowerVault > MD1000 will give you 15 x 2TB as inexpensively as possible in a single > 3U space (well, as cheaply as you want to go--you might build your own > giant box cheaper but I wouldn't recommend ). I'm curious what people think of these: http://www.pc-pitstop.com/sas_cables_enclosures/scsase166g.asp I currently have my database on two of these and for my purpose they seem to be fine and are quite a bit less expensive than the Dell MD1000. I actually have three more of the 3G versions with expanders for mass storage arrays (RAID0) and haven't had any issues with them in the three years I've had them. Bob