From: | "Mikael Carneholm" <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "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 20:38:12 |
Message-ID: | 7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B3E40AA@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> 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.
> The two controllers and two FC switches/hubs are intended for
redundancy, rather than performance, so there's only one 2Gbit channel.
I > don't know if its possible to use both in parallel to get better
performance.
> I believe it's possible to join two or more FC ports on the switch
together, but as there's only port going to the controller internally
this presumably wouldn't help.
> There are two SCSI U320 buses, with seven bays on each. I don't know
what the overhead of SCSI is, but you're obviously not going to get >
490MB/s for each set of seven even if the FC could do it.
Darn. I was really looking forward to ~500Mb/s :(
> Of course your database may not spend all day doing sequential scans
one at a time over 14 disks, so it doesn't necessarily matter...
That's probably true, but *knowing* that the max seq scan speed is that
high gives you some confidence (true or fake) that the hardware will be
sufficient the next 2 years or so. So, if dual 2GBit FC:s still don't
deliver more than 200Mb/s, what does?
-Mikael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-04-24 21:00:18 | Re: GROUP BY Vs. Sub SELECT |
Previous Message | Richard Broersma Jr | 2006-04-24 19:07:39 | Re: GROUP BY Vs. Sub SELECT |