Message-ID: <5302B5FD.10204@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:23:09 +0900
From: KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo.mitsumasa@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>, DFE <mimmopasticcio@gmail.com>
CC: =?UTF-8?B?TmllbHMgS3Jpc3RpYW4gU2NoasO4ZHQ=?=
 <nielskristian@autouncle.com>,
 "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org list" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Optimal settings for RAID controller - optimized for
 writes
References: <D89BE95F-60D2-431B-A82D-53378392AAC3@autouncle.com>
 <CALqvQ1MRopjqc3W8Q_U061Lmm04Eip65cDNtfqB6mhj0wbA94g@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc5e841fac96910a36a563e844dfb80a.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
In-Reply-To: <bc5e841fac96910a36a563e844dfb80a.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

Hi,

I don't have PERC H710 raid controller, but I think he would like to know raid 
striping/chunk size or read/write cache ratio in writeback-cache setting is the 
best. I'd like to know it, too:)

Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center

(2014/02/18 0:54), Tomas Vondra wrote:
> The thing is, it's difficult to transfer these experiences without clear
> idea of the workloads.
>
> For example I wouldn't say 200 updates / second is a write-heavy workload.
> A single 15k drive should handle that just fine, assuming the data fit
> into RAM (which seems to be the case, but maybe I got that wrong).
>
> Niels, what amounts of data are we talking about? What is the total
> database size? How much data are you updating? Are those updates random,
> or are you updating a lot of data in a sequential manner? How did you
> determine UPDATEs are the bottleneck?
>
> Tomas
>
> On 17 Únor 2014, 16:29, DFE wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I configured a similar architecture some months ago and this is the best
>> choice after some pgbench and Bonnie++ tests.
>> Server: DELL R720d
>> CPU: dual Xeon 8-core
>> RAM: 32GB ECC
>> Controller PERC H710
>> Disks:
>> 2xSSD (MLC) Raid1 for Operating System (CentOS 6.4)
>> 4xSSD (SLC) Raid10 for WAL archive and a dedicated "fast tablespace",
>> where
>> we have most UPDATE actions (+ Hot spare).
>> 10xHDD 15kRPM Raid5 for "default tablespace" (optimized for space, instead
>> of Raid10)  (+ Hot spare).
>>
>> Our application have above 200 UPDATE /sec. (on the "fast tablespace") and
>> above 15GB per die of records (on the "default tablespace").
>>
>> After the testing phase I had the following conclusion:
>> 4xSSD (SLC) RAID 10 vs. 10xHDD RAID 5 have comparable I/O performance in
>> the sequential Read and Write, but much more performance on the Random
>> scan
>> (obviously!!), BUT as far I know the postgresql I/O processes are not
>> heavily involved in a random I/O, so at same price I will prefer to buy
>> 10xHDD instead of 4xSSD (SLC) using above 10x of available space at the
>> same price!!
>>
>> 10xHDD RAID 10 vs. 10xHDD RAID 5 : with Bonnie++ I noticed a very small
>> difference in I/O performance so I decided to use RAID 5 + a dedicated Hot
>> Spare instead of a RAID10.
>>
>> If I could go back,  I would have spent the money of the SLC in other
>> HDDs.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance