Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D956504CA for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:01:42 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36116-03-2 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:01:36 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from EXHUB018-2.exch018.msoutlookonline.net (exhub018-2.exch018.msoutlookonline.net [64.78.17.17]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE496504AB for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:01:35 -0400 (AST) Received: from EXVMBX018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net ([64.78.17.47]) by EXHUB018-2.exch018.msoutlookonline.net ([64.78.17.17]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:01:34 -0800 From: Scott Carey To: Scott Carey , Scott Marlowe CC: Jean-David Beyer , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:01:32 -0800 Subject: Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing Thread-Index: AclaIpqJa4HvO6ZJT4SMWscTLkgp8wAAOJ02AAErc30= Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C563F27CF6Escottrichrelevancecom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200812/86 X-Sequence-Number: 32122 --_000_C563F27CF6Escottrichrelevancecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Let me re-phrase this. For today, at 200GB or less of required space, and 500GB or less next year. "Where we're going, we don't NEED spindles." Seriously, go down to the store and get 6 X25-M's, they're as cheap as $550= each and will be sub $500 soon. These are more than sufficient for all bu= t heavy write workloads (each can withstand ~600+ TB of writes in a lifetim= e, and SMART will tell you before they go). 6 in a RAID 10 will give you 7= 50MB/sec read, and equivalent MB/sec in random reads. I've tested them. R= andom writes are very very fast too, faster than any SAS drive. Put this in your current system, and you won't need to upgrade the RAM unle= ss you need items in cache to reduce CPU load or need it for the work_mem s= pace. Spindles will soon be only for capacity and sequential access performance r= equirements. Solid state will be for IOPS, and I would argue that for most= Postgres installations, already is (now that the Intel SSD drive, which do= es random writes and read/write concurrency well, has arrived - more such n= ext gen drives are on the way). On 12/9/08 9:28 AM, "Scott Carey" wrote: > Lucky you, having needs that are fulfilled by sequential reads. :) > I wonder how many hard drives it would take to be CPU bound on random > access patterns? About 40 to 60? And probably 15k / SAS drives to > boot. Cause that's what we're looking at in the next few years where > I work. About $3000 worth of Intel --- mainstream SSD's =3D 240GB space (6 in raid = 10) today, 2x to 3x that storage area in 1 year. Random reads are even easier, provided you don't need more than 500GB or so= . And with something like ZFS + L2ARC you can back your data with large slow = iops disks and have cache access to data without requiring mirrors on the c= ache ($3k of ssds for that covers 2x the area, then). -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance --_000_C563F27CF6Escottrichrelevancecom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [PERFORM] Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing Let me re-phrase this.

For today, at 200GB or less of required space, and 500GB or less next year.=

“Where we’re going, we don’t NEED spindles.”


Seriously, go down to the store and get 6 X25-M’s, they’re as c= heap as $550 each and will be sub $500 soon.  These are more than suff= icient for all but heavy write workloads (each can withstand ~600+ TB of wr= ites in a lifetime, and SMART will tell you before they go).  6 in a R= AID 10 will give you 750MB/sec read, and equivalent MB/sec in random reads.=  I’ve tested them.  Random writes are very very fast too, = faster than any SAS drive.
Put this in your current system, and you won’t need to upgrade the RA= M unless you need items in cache to reduce CPU load or need it for the work= _mem space.

Spindles will soon be only for capacity and sequential access performance r= equirements.  Solid state will be for IOPS, and I would argue that for= most Postgres installations, already is (now that the Intel SSD drive, whi= ch does random writes and read/write concurrency well, has arrived — = more such next gen drives are on the way).


On 12/9/08 9:28 AM, "Scott Carey" <scott@richrelevance.com> wrote:

> Lucky you, having needs that are fulfi= lled by sequential reads.  :)

> I wonder how many hard drives it would take to be CPU bound on random<= BR> > access patterns?  About 40 to 60?  And probably 15k / SAS dr= ives to
> boot.  Cause that's what we're looking at in the next few years w= here
> I work.

About $3000 worth of Intel --- mainstream SSD's =3D 240GB space (6 in raid = 10) today, 2x to 3x that storage area in 1 year.

Random reads are even easier, provided you don't need more than 500GB or so= .

And with something like ZFS + L2ARC you can back your data with large slow = iops disks and have cache access to data without requiring mirrors on the c= ache ($3k of ssds for that covers 2x the area, then).

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

--_000_C563F27CF6Escottrichrelevancecom_--