Re: Hardware performance

От: Vincent van Leeuwen
Тема: Re: Hardware performance
Дата: ,
Msg-id: 20030717101415.GR21071@md2.mediadesign.nl
(см: обсуждение, исходный текст)
Ответ на: Hardware performance  ("Balazs Wellisch")
Список: pgsql-performance

Скрыть дерево обсуждения

Hardware performance  ("Balazs Wellisch", )
 Re: Hardware performance  ("Roman Fail", )
  Re: Hardware performance  (Ron Johnson, )
 Re: Hardware performance  (Joe Conway, )
  Re: Hardware performance  (Hannu Krosing, )
   Re: Hardware performance  (Joe Conway, )
    Re: Hardware performance  (Adam Witney, )
     Re: Hardware performance  (Joe Conway, )
      Re: Hardware performance  (Adam Witney, )
       Re: Hardware performance  (Joe Conway, )
       Re: Hardware performance  (Jord Tanner, )
       Re: Hardware performance  (Robert Creager, )
    Re: Hardware performance  (Andrew Sullivan, )
 Re: Hardware performance  (Vincent van Leeuwen, )
 Re: Hardware performance  (Jean-Luc Lachance, )
  Re: Hardware performance  (Joe Conway, )
 Re: Hardware performance  (Jean-Luc Lachance, )
 Re: Hardware performance  ("Magnus Hagander", )
  Re: Hardware performance  (Ron Johnson, )
 Re: Hardware performance  ("Magnus Hagander", )

On 2003-07-16 19:57:22 -0700, Balazs Wellisch wrote:
> We're now stuck on the question of what type of RAID configuration to use
> for this server. RAID 5 offers the best fault tolerance but doesn't perform
> all that well. RAID 10 offers much better performance, but no hot swap. Or
> should we not use RAID at all. I know that ideally the log (WAL) files
> should reside on a separate disk from the rest of the DB. Should we use 4
> separate drives instead? One for the OS, one for data, one for WAL, one for
> swap? Or RAID 10 for everything plus 1 drive for WAL? Or RAID 5 for
> everything?
>

We have recently run our own test (simulating our own database load) on a new
server which contained 7 15K rpm disks. Since we always want to have a
hot-spare drive (servers are located in a hard-to-reach datacenter) and we
always want redundancy, we tested two different configurations:
- 6 disk RAID 10 array, holding everything
- 4 disk RAID 5 array holding postgresql data and 2 disk RAID 1 array holding
  OS, swap and WAL logs

Our database is used for a very busy community website, so our load contains a
lot of inserts/updates for a website, but much more selects than there are
updates.

Our findings were that the 6 disk RAID 10 set was significantly faster than
the other setup.

So I'd recommend a 4-disk RAID 10 array. I'd use the 5th drive for a hot-spare
drive, but that's your own call. However, it would be best if you tested some
different setups under your own database load to see what works best for you.


Vincent van Leeuwen
Media Design - http://www.mediadesign.nl/


В списке pgsql-performance по дате сообщения:

От: Richard Huxton
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Relation of indices to ANALYZE
От: Albert Cervera Areny
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [ODBC] Bad performance using ODBC