From: Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
To: Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:58:56 -0500
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20051116083943.01be0b98@earthlink.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <33c6269f0511152116s4483af82s91c711b1b902da14@mail.gmail.co m>
References: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D01995F7B@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com>
<B41A9E46-AC4F-4A3A-B383-AB70091745CF@fastcrypt.com>
<33c6269f0511152116s4483af82s91c711b1b902da14@mail.gmail.com>
Got some hard numbers to back your statement up? IME, the Areca
1160's with >= 1GB of cache beat any other commodity RAID
controller. This seems to be in agreement with at least one
independent testing source:
http://print.tweakers.net/?reviews/557
RAID HW from Xyratex, Engino, or Dot Hill will _destroy_ any
commodity HW solution, but their price point is considerably higher.
...on another note, I completely agree with the poster who says we
need more cache on RAID controllers. We should all be beating on the
RAID HW manufacturers to use standard DIMMs for their caches and to
provide 2 standard DIMM slots in their full height cards (allowing
for up to 8GB of cache using 2 4GB DIMMs as of this writing).
It should also be noted that 64 drive chassis' are going to become
possible once 2.5" 10Krpm SATA II and FC HDs become the standard next
year (48's are the TOTL now). We need controller technology to keep up.
Ron
At 12:16 AM 11/16/2005, Alex Turner wrote:
>Not at random access in RAID 10 they aren't, and anyone with their
>head screwed on right is using RAID 10. The 9500S will still beat the
>Areca cards at RAID 10 database access patern.
>
>Alex.
>
>On 11/15/05, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
> > Luke,
> >
> > Have you tried the areca cards, they are slightly faster yet.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On 15-Nov-05, at 7:09 AM, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree - you can get a very good one from www.acmemicro.com or
> >
> > www.rackable.com with 8x 400GB SATA disks and the new 3Ware 9550SX SATA
> >
> > RAID controller for about $6K with two Opteron 272 CPUs and 8GB of RAM
> >
> > on a Tyan 2882 motherboard. We get about 400MB/s sustained disk read
> >
> > performance on these (with tuning) on Linux using the xfs filesystem,
> >
> > which is one of the most critical factors for large databases.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Note that you want to have your DBMS use all of the CPU and disk channel
> >
> > bandwidth you have on each query, which takes a parallel database like
> >
> > Bizgres MPP to achieve.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: rjpeace@earthlink.net, armtuk@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.0.20051116083943.01be0b98@earthlink.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox