Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases

From: Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
To: Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases
Date: 2005-11-16 13:58:56
Message-ID: 6.2.5.6.0.20051116083943.01be0b98@earthlink.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

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(at)fastcrypt(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Stapleton 2005-11-16 14:13:26 Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2005-11-16 13:58:48 Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (