From: Andy <angelflow@yahoo.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Benjamin Krajmalnik <kraj@servoyant.com>
Subject: Re: Hardware recommendations
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:26:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <81350.2353.qm@web111304.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F4E6A2751A2823418A21D4A160B689887B0A4D@fletch.stackdump.local>
If you are IO-bound, you might want to consider using SSD.
A single SSD could easily give you more IOPS than 16 15k SAS in RAID 10.
--- On Wed, 12/8/10, Benjamin Krajmalnik <kraj@servoyant.com> wrote:
> From: Benjamin Krajmalnik <kraj@servoyant.com>
> Subject: [PERFORM] Hardware recommendations
> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2010, 6:03 PM
> I need to build a new high
> performance server to replace our current production
> database server.
> The current server is a SuperMicro 1U with 2 RAID-1
> containers (one for data, one for log, SAS - data is 600GB,
> Logs 144GB), 16GB of RAM, running 2 quad core processors
> (E5405 @ 2GHz), Adaptec 5405 Controller with BBU. I am
> already having serious I/O bottlenecks with iostat -x
> showing extended periods where the disk subsystem on the
> data partition (the one with all the random i/o) at over 85%
> busy. The system is running FreeBSD 7.2 amd64 and
> PostgreSQL 8.4.4 on amd64-portbld-freebsd7.2, compiled by
> GCC cc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD], 64-bit.
> Currently I have about 4GB of shared memory allocated to
> PostgreSQL. Database is currently about 80GB, with about
> 60GB being in partitioned tables which get rotated nightly
> to purge old data (sort of like a circular buffer of
> historic data).
>
> I was looking at one of the machines which Aberdeen has
> (the X438), and was planning on something along the lines
> of 96GB RAM with 16 SAS drives (15K). If I create a RAID
> 10 (stripe of mirrors), leaving 2 hot spares, should I still
> place the logs in a separate RAID-1 mirror, or can they be
> left on the same RAID-10 container?
> On the processor front, are there advantages to going to X
> series processors as opposed to the E series (especially
> since I am I/O bound)? Is anyone running this type of
> hardware, specially on FreeBSD? Any opinions, especially
> concerning the Areca controllers which they use?
>
> The new box would ideally be built with the latest released
> version of FreeBSD, PG 9.x. Also, is anyone running the
> 8.x series of FreeBSD with PG 9 in a high throughput
> production environment? I will be upgrading one of our
> test servers in one week to this same configuration to test
> out, but just wanted to make sure there aren't any caveats
> others have experienced, especially as it pertains with the
> autovacuum not launching worker processes which I have
> experienced.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Benjamin
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
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: angelflow@yahoo.com, kraj@servoyant.com
Subject: Re: Hardware recommendations
In-Reply-To: <81350.2353.qm@web111304.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
* 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