From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alex Hayward <xelah-pgsql(at)xelah(dot)com>, Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hardware: HP StorageWorks MSA 1500 |
Date: | 2006-04-24 01:29:17 |
Message-ID: | 444C29ED.2070901@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> Your numbers seem quite ok considering the number of disks. We also get
> a 256Mb battery backed cache module with it, so I'm looking forward to
> testing the write performance (first using ext3, then xfs). If I get the
> enough time to test it, I'll test both raid 0+1 and raid 5
> configurations although I trust raid 0+1 more.
>
> And no, it's not the cheapest way to get storage - but it's only half as
> expensive as the other option: an EVA4000, which we're gonna have to go
> for if we(they) decide to stay in bed with a proprietary database. With
> postgres we don't need replication on SAN level (using slony) so the MSA
> 1500 would be sufficient, and that's a good thing (price wise) as we're
> gonna need two. OTOH, the EVA4000 will not give us mirroring so either
> way, we're gonna need two of whatever system we go for. Just hoping the
> MSA 1500 is reliable as well...
>
> Support will hopefully not be a problem for us as we have a local
> company providing support, they're also the ones setting it up for us so
> at least we'll know right away if they're compentent or not :)
>
If I'm reading the original post correctly, the biggest issue is likely
to be that the 14 disks on each 2Gbit fibre channel will be throttled to
200Mb/s by the channel , when in fact you could expect (in RAID 10
arrangement) to get about 7 * 70 Mb/s = 490 Mb/s.
Cheers
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Will Reese | 2006-04-24 02:41:14 | Slow deletes in 8.1 when FKs are involved |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-23 23:34:24 | Re: GROUP BY Vs. Sub SELECT |