Re: SAN/NAS options

Usually manufacturer's claims are tested in 'ideal' conditions, it may not translate well on bandwidth seen on the host
side.A 2Gbps Fiber Channel connection would (ideally) give you about 250MB/sec per HBA. Not sure how it translates for
GigEconsidering scsi protocol overheads, but you may want to confirm from them how they achieved 370MB/sec (hwo many
iSCSIcontrollers, what file system, how many drives, what RAID type, block size, strip size, cache settings, etc), and
whetherit was physical I/O or cached. In other words, if someone has any benchmark numbers, that would be helpful.
 
 
Regarding diskless iscsi boots for future servers, remember that it's a shared storage, if you have a busy server
attachedto your Nexsan, you may have to think twice on sharing the performance (throughput and IOPS of the storage
controller)without impacting the existing hosts, unless you are zizing it now.
 
 
And you want to have a pretty clean GigE network, more or less dedicated to this block traffic.
 
Large internal storage with more memory and AMD CPUs is an option as Luke had originally suggested. Check out Appro as
well.
 
I'd also be curious to know if someone has been using this (SATA/iSCSI/SAS) solution and what are some I/O numbers
observed.
 
Thanks,
Anjan

    -----Original Message----- 
    From: Matthew Schumacher [mailto:matt.s@aptalaska.net] 
    Sent: Mon 12/19/2005 7:41 PM 
    To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org 
    Cc: 
    Subject: Re: [PERFORM] SAN/NAS options
    
    

    Jim C. Nasby wrote: 
    > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:56:10AM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote: 
    >  You'll note that I'm being somewhat driven by my OS of choice, FreeBSD. 
    > 
    >>Unlike Solaris or other commercial offerings, there is no nice volume 
    >>management available.  While I'd love to keep managing a dozen or so 
    >>FreeBSD boxes, I could be persuaded to go to Solaris x86 if the volume 
    >>management really shines and Postgres performs well on it. 
    > 
    > 
    > Have you looked at vinum? It might not qualify as a true volume manager, 
    > but it's still pretty handy. 

    I am looking very closely at purchasing a SANRAD Vswitch 2000, a Nexsan 
    SATABoy with SATA disks, and the Qlogic iscsi controller cards. 

    Nexsan claims up to 370MB/s sustained per controller and 44,500 IOPS but 
    I'm not sure if that is good or bad.  It's certainly faster than the LSI 
    megaraid controller I'm using now with a raid 1 mirror. 

    The sanrad box looks like it saves money in that you don't have to by 
    controller cards for everything, but for I/O intensive servers such as 
    the database server, I would end up buying an iscsi controller card anyway. 

    At this point I'm not sure what the best solution is.  I like the idea 
    of having logical disks available though iscsi because of how flexible 
    it is, but I really don't want to spend $20k (10 for the nexsan and 10 
    for the sanrad) and end up with poor performance. 

    On other advantage to iscsi is that I can go completely diskless on my 
    servers and boot from iscsi which means that I don't have to have spare 
    disks for each host, now I just have spare disks for the nexsan chassis. 

    So the question becomes: has anyone put postgres on an iscsi san, and if 
    so how did it perform? 

    schu 



    ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- 
    TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? 

                   http://archives.postgresql.org