If my un-word wrapping is correct your running ~90% user cpu. Yikes. Could you get away with fewer disks for this kind of thing?
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Nikolas Everett <nik9...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> But you should plan on partitioning to multiple db servers up front > >> and save pain of conversion later on. A dual socket motherboard with > >> 16 to 32 SAS drives and a fast RAID controller is WAY cheaper than a > >> similar machine with 4 to 8 sockets is gonna be. And if you gotta go > >> there anyway, might as well spend your money on other stuff. > >> > > > > I agree. If you can partition that sensor data across multiple DBs and > have > > your application do the knitting you might be better off. If I may be so > > bold, you might want to look at splaying the systems out across your > > backends. I'm just trying to think of a dimension that you won't want to > > aggregate across frequently. > > Agreed back. If there's a logical dimension to split data on, it > becomes much easier to throw x machines at it than to try and build > one ubermachine to handle it all. > > > On the other hand, one of these 16 to 32 SAS drive systems with a raid > card > > will likely get you a long way. > > Yes they can. We're about to have to add a third db server, cause > this is the load on our main slave db: > > procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- > -----cpu------ > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id > wa st > 22 0 220 633228 229556 28432976 0 0 638 304 0 0 21 > 3 73 3 0 > 19 1 220 571980 229584 28435180 0 0 96 1111 7091 9796 90 > 6 4 0 0 > 20 0 220 532208 229644 28440244 0 0 140 3357 7110 9175 90 > 6 3 0 0 > 19 1 220 568440 229664 28443688 0 0 146 1527 7765 10481 > 90 7 3 0 0 > 9 1 220 806668 229688 28445240 0 0 99 326 6661 10326 > 89 6 5 0 0 > 9 0 220 814016 229712 28446144 0 0 54 1544 7456 10283 > 90 6 4 0 0 > 11 0 220 782876 229744 28447628 0 0 96 406 6619 9354 90 > 5 5 0 0 > 29 1 220 632624 229784 28449964 0 0 113 994 7109 9958 90 > 7 3 0 0 > > It's working fine. This has a 16 15k5 SAS disks. A 12 Disk RAID-10, > a 2 disk mirror for pg_xlog / OS, and two spares. It has 8 opteron > cores and 32Gig ram. We're completely CPU bound because of the type of > app we're running. So time for slave number 2... >
