Regarding the DL585 etc boxes from HP, they seem to require external JBOD or
SCSI/SAS enclosures. Does anyone have any particular preference on how these
units should be configured or speced? I'm guessing I'll use the onboard SCSI
RAID 1 with the onboard drives for the OS, but will need 2
Thanks Arjen,
I have unlimited rack space if I really need it. Is serial/SAS really the
better route to go than SCSI these days? I'm so used to ordering SCSI that
I've been out of the loop with new disk enclosures and disk tech. I been
trying to price out a HP DL585, but those are considerably
Hi Kenji,
I'm not sure what you mean by 'something newer'? The intel
woodcrest-cpu's are brand-new compared to the amd opterons. But if you
need a 4-cpu config (I take it you want 8-cores in that case), Dell
doesn't offer much. Whether something new will come, I don't know. I'm
not sure when
Thanks Arjen for your reply, this is definitely something to consider. I
think in our case, we are not too concerned with the tech image as much as if
the machine will allow us to scale the loads we need. I'm not sure if we
should worry so much about the IO bandwidth as we are not even close to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arjen van
der Meijden
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 3:42 PM
To: Kenji Morishige
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] most bang for buck with ~ $20,000
Hi Kenji,
I'm not sure what you mean
Well, that's of course really hard to tell. From personal experience in
a read-mostly environment, the subtop woodcrest 5150 (2.6Ghz)
outperforms the top dempsey 5080 (3.7Ghz, in the same system) by quite a
nice margin. But that dempsey already has the faster FB-Dimm memory and
a much wider
On Aug 9, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Note that some controllers (such as 3ware) need to periodically
test the
life of the BBU, and they disable write caching when they do so, which
would tank performance.
Yep. I did the battery capacity test before I went live with our
9550sx
I have unlimited rack space, so 2U is not the issue. The boxes are stored in
our lab for internal software tools. I'm going to research those boxes you
mention. Regarding the JBOD enclosures, are these generally just 2U or 4U
units with SCSI interface connectors? I didn't see these types of
We were in a similar situation with a similar budget. But we had two
requirements, no deprecated scsi while the successor SAS is available
and preferrably only 3 or 4U of rack space. And it had to have
reasonable amounts of disks (at least 12).
The two options we finally choose between where
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 17:53, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of
On 8/9/06, Kenji Morishige [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have unlimited rack space, so 2U is not the issue. The boxes are stored in
our lab for internal software tools. I'm going to research those boxes you
mention. Regarding the JBOD enclosures, are these generally just 2U or 4U
units with SCSI
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:35, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Actually, the BIGGEST win comes when you've got battery backed cache on
your RAID controller. In fact, I'd spend money on a separate RAID
controller for xlog with its own cache
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:50:30PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:35, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Actually, the BIGGEST win comes when you've got battery backed cache on
your RAID controller. In fact, I'd spend
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of RAM
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
- 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog
Does anyone know a vendor that might be able provide such setup?
I would look
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of RAM
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
- 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog
Does anyone know a vendor
The 1+0 on the WAL is better than on PGDATA? I guess I'm confused about the
write sequence of the data. I will research more, thank you!
-Kenji
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:59:09PM -0500, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am considering a setup
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 15:43, Kenji Morishige wrote:
I've asked for some help here a few months ago and got some really helpfull
answers regarding RAID controllers and server configuration. Up until
recently I've been running PostgreSQL on a two year old Dual Xeon 3.06Ghz
machine with a single
Great info, which vendor were you looking at for these Opterons? I am goign
to be purchasing 2 of these. :) I do need 24/7 reliability.
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 05:08:29PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 15:43, Kenji Morishige wrote:
I've asked for some help here a few months
On Aug 8, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Kenji Morishige wrote:
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of RAM
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
- 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog
Does anyone know a
Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of RAM
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
- 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog
On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of RAM
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
- 4 disk RAID 1+0
In which case, which is theoretically better (since I don't have a
convenient test bed at the moment) for WAL in a write-heavy environment?
More disks in a RAID 10 (which should theoretically improve write
throughput in general, to a point) or a 2-disk RAID 1? Does it become a
On Aug 8, 2006, at 6:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
In which case, which is theoretically better (since I don't have a
convenient test bed at the moment) for WAL in a write-heavy
environment? More disks in a RAID 10 (which should theoretically
improve write throughput in general, to a
With such a budget you should easily be able to get something like:
- A 1U high-performance server (for instance the Dell 1950 with 2x
Woodcrest 5160, 16GB of FB-Dimm memory, one 5i and one 5e perc raid
controller and some disks internally)
- An external SAS direct attached disks storage
24 matches
Mail list logo
