X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72B5D1D570 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:10:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44624-04 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:10:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from mailhub1.sghms.ac.uk (firewall.sghms.ac.uk [194.82.50.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B97BD1D695 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:10:19 -0400 (AST) Received: from [194.82.51.24] (helo=imail) by mailhub1.sghms.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AN8Eh-0008JU-DF; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:09:59 +0000 Received: from [172.16.20.3] (mrc1-003.sghms.ac.uk [172.16.20.3]) by imail.sghms.ac.uk (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002)) with ESMTPA id <0HOP00AD15KNGA@imail.sghms.ac.uk>; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:09:59 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:08:42 +0000 From: Adam Witney Subject: Re: Hardware advice In-reply-to: To: "scott.marlowe" Cc: pgsql-performance Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact sysadmin at sghms.ac.uk for more information X-MailScanner-MH1: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 5, APARENTLY_FROM_MYSELF 1.00, BAYES_00 -4.90, FROM_SGHMS -1.00) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/218 X-Sequence-Number: 4778 On 30/5/03 6:17 pm, "scott.marlowe" wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2003, Adam Witney wrote: > >> Hi scott, >> >> Thanks for the info >> >>> You might wanna do something like go to all 146 gig drives, put a mirror >>> set on the first 20 or so gigs for the OS, and then use the remainder >>> (5x120gig or so ) to make your RAID5. The more drives in a RAID5 the >>> better, generally, up to about 8 or 12 as the optimal for most setups. >> >> I am not quite sure I understand what you mean here... Do you mean take 20Gb >> from each of the 5 drives to setup a 20Gb RAID 1 device? Or just from the >> first 2 drives? > > You could do it either way, since the linux kernel supports more than 2 > drives in a mirror. But, this costs on writes, so don't do it for things > like /var or the pg_xlog directory. > > There are a few ways you could arrange 5 146 gig drives. > > One might be to make the first 20 gig on each drive part of a mirror set > where the first two drives are the live mirror, and the next three are hot > spares. Then you could setup your RAID5 to have 4 live drives and 1 hot > spare. > > Hot spares are nice to have because they provide for the shortest period > of time during which your machine is running with a degraded RAID array. > > note that in linux you can set the kernel parameter > dev.raid.speed_limit_max and dev.raid.speed_limit_min to control the > rebuild bandwidth used so that when a disk dies you can set a compromise > between fast rebuilds, and lowering the demands on the I/O subsystem > during a rebuild. The max limit default is 100k / second, which is quite > slow. On a machine with Ultra320 gear, you could set that to 10 ot 20 > megs a second and still not saturate your SCSI buss. > > Now that I think of it, you could probably set it up so that you have a > mirror set for the OS, one for pg_xlog, and then use the rest of the > drives as RAID5. Then grab space on the fifth drive to make a hot spare > for both the pg_xlog and the OS drive. > > Drive 0 > [OS RAID1 20 Gig D0][big data drive RAID5 106 Gig D0] > Drive 1 > [OS RAID1 20 Gig D1][big data drive RAID5 106 Gig D1] > Drive 2 > [pg_xlog RAID1 20 gig D0][big data drive RAID5 106 Gig D2] > Drive 3 > [pg_xlog RAID1 20 gig D1][big data drive RAID5 106 Gig D3] > Drive 4 > [OS hot spare 20 gig][g_clog hot spare 20 gig][big data drive RAID5 106 > Gig hot spare] > > That would give you ~ 300 gigs storage. > > Of course, there will likely be slightly less performance than you might > get from dedicated RAID arrays for each RAID1/RAID5 set, but my guess is > that by having 4 (or 5 if you don't want a hot spare) drives in the RAID5 > it'll still be faster than a dedicated 3 drive RAID array. > Hi Scott, Just following up a post from a few months back... I have now purchased the hardware, do you have a recommended/preferred Linux distro that is easy to configure for software RAID? Thanks again Adam -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.