Scott Whitney wrote:
On the 10k vs 15k rpm disks, there's a _lot_ to be said about that. I don't want to start a flame war here,
but 15k versus 10k rpm hard drives does NOT equivocate to a 50% increase in read/write times, to say
the VERY least.
Your characterization is correct were there
A _very_ valid point which I omitted simply because it once again points to 24
spindles
equating to a faster array than 12. The problem, as you so easily summarize, is
the fact
that once you put any decent RAID controller into this, you've essentially
added
a magic black box that does better
All the disks are usually laid out in a single RAID 10 stripe . There
are no dedicated disks for the OS/WAL as storage is a premium
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Anj Adu wrote:
We do not archive the WALs. We use application-level replication to
I also want to add that with the perc 6i controllers..we have never
had issues. We have been running postgres nonstop for over 2 years and
sustaining a throughput of over 60-100 million messages a day without
breaking sweat. (postgres 8.1.9 on linux 32 bit )
I have to say I am impressed with the
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
All the disks are usually laid out in a single RAID 10 stripe . There
are no dedicated disks for the OS/WAL as storage is a premium
You should at least investigate the performance difference of having a
separate volume for
With the increase in the number of disks that we can afford to have in
1 box..we will definitely plan on having WAL on dedicated disks.
Previously..we were stuck with the chassis limitation of 6 disks per
box.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
With the increase in the number of disks that we can afford to have in
1 box..we will definitely plan on having WAL on dedicated disks.
Previously..we were stuck with the chassis limitation of 6 disks per
box.
Yeah, the
During the testing that I did when moving from pg7 to pg8 a few years back, I
didn't notice any particular performance
increase on a similarly-configured server.
That is, we've got 14 disks (15k rpm) striped in a single RAID10 array. Moving
the logs to an internal RAID
versus leaving them on
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Scott Whitney sc...@journyx.com wrote:
During the testing that I did when moving from pg7 to pg8 a few years back, I
didn't notice any particular performance
increase on a similarly-configured server.
That is, we've got 14 disks (15k rpm) striped in a single
I am faced with a hardware choice for a postgres data warehouse
(extremely high volume inserts..over 200 million records a day) with a
total storage of either
12 x 600G disks (15K) (the new Dell Poweredge C server)
or
24 x 600G (10K disks)
ALL direct attached storage.
I am leaning toward
I forgot to add that the 24 10K disks are 2.5 inch and the 12 15K
disks are 3.5 inch
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
I am faced with a hardware choice for a postgres data warehouse
(extremely high volume inserts..over 200 million records a day) with a
Our experience shows that the 2.5 inch 10K disks have about the same
I/O rate as the 3.5 inch 15K disks. Ideal would be 15K 2.5 inch.
To answer you bigger question, it depends on how many threads are
running to perform the inserts. If you have lots (2-3 times as many threads
as disks) then your
or the disk cache size.
Do you have benchmarks about these hard disk models ?
How about using SSD? ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: [ADMIN] more 10K disks or less 15K disks
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:27:26 -0700
I am faced
have benchmarks about these hard disk models ?
How about using SSD? ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: [ADMIN] more 10K disks or less 15K disks
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:27:26 -0700
I am faced with a hardware choice
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you all for the comments
We have not benchmarked the new hardware yet..however..we do have
existing hardware that deals with very high volumes and handle pretty
well (Dell 2950 Intel 5430 8-cores with 6x450G 15K disks
Anj Adu wrote:
I am faced with a hardware choice for a postgres data warehouse
(extremely high volume inserts..over 200 million records a day)
That's an average of 2314 per second, which certainly isn't easy to pull
off. You suggested you're already running this app. Do you have any
idea
Thanks Greg
We do not archive the WALs. We use application-level replication to
achieve redundancy. WAL archiving was difficult to support with the
earlier hardware we had ( 6x300G 10K disks Dell 2850) given the
volumes we were dealing with. The RAID card should be from the same
manufacturer (LSI
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Greg
We do not archive the WALs. We use application-level replication to
achieve redundancy. WAL archiving was difficult to support with the
earlier hardware we had ( 6x300G 10K disks Dell 2850) given the
volumes we
Anj Adu wrote:
We do not archive the WALs. We use application-level replication to
achieve redundancy. WAL archiving was difficult to support with the
earlier hardware we had ( 6x300G 10K disks Dell 2850) given the
volumes we were dealing with. The RAID card should be from the same
manufacturer
19 matches
Mail list logo
