I'd be looking closely at what you can spread out.
IE putting different tables on different spindles.
I wonder about using a SSD or two (raid 1) for everything except the
actual message content.
stick the content on a raid 5/6
Sticking a SSD into your current setup should be pretty quick to test
and they are rather cheap these days.
On 25/01/13 12:00, Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 06:43:41 PM rich carroll wrote:
We are discussing upgrading our current email server hard drives or
outsourcing email to google or some other provider. The question to me is,
can we get 8 x 3TB sata drives and go raid6 and allow up to 5GB of mail
storage for each mailbox? Will this cause the server(db) to puke? Anyone
have experience with this range of server and will postgres struggle with a
DB that size? Any idea what is too big for one box?
Currently the server seems to handle the load OK, but the db can get slow
at times before db upkeep and I attribute this to disk IO but am not sure.
CPU usage is never very much. Any pointers to find my bottleneck when it
does have issues would be appreciated. Would the raid improve the read
performance of the drive enough(or at all) to overcome the increased db
size?
Do not use RAID 5 or 6 for a database server. Just don't. RAID 10 is the only
choice.
vmstat when it's slow will show you what the bottleneck is. If I/O wait is
significant, then the disk is the bottleneck.
PostgreSQL can handle very large databases. But I/O needs to be distributed
over a lot of disks to get concurrency up. If you only have a single raid 1
disk pair now, that is certainly your bottleneck.
More RAM for caching is also always good. Serving as many random reads as
possible from cache is essential.
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
