Re: Recomended FS
От | Markus Wollny |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Recomended FS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2266D0630E43BB4290742247C891057502B9D2C8@dozer.computec.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Recomended FS ("Ben-Nes Michael" <miki@canaan.co.il>) |
Ответы |
Re: Recomended FS
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Hi! > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Shridhar Daithankar [mailto:shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 08:08 > An: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS > Can you compare ogbench results for the RAID and single IDE > disks? It would be > great if you could turn off write caching of individual > drives in RAID and > test it as well. One thing I can say from previous experiences is that the type of RAID does matter quite a lot. RAID5, even with a quite expensive Adaptec SCSI-hardware-controller, is not always the best solution for a database, particularly if there's a lot of INSERTs and UPDATEs going on. If you're not too dependant on raw storage size, your best bet is to use the space-consuming RAID0+1 instead; the reasoning behind this is probably that on RAID5 the controller has to calculate the parity-data for every write-access, on RAID0+1 it just mirrors and distributes the data, reducing overall load on the controller and making use of more spindles and two-channel-SCSI. We're hosting some DB-intensive websites (>12M impressions/month) on two PostgreSQL-servers (one DELL Poweredge 6400, 4xPentium III Xeon@550MHz, 2GB RAM, 4x18GB SCSI in RAID0+1, 1 hot-spare and one Dell Poweredge 6650, 4x Intel XEON@1.40GHz, 4GB RAM, 4x36 GB SCSI in RAID0+1, 1 hot-spare) and when I switched the 5-disc-RAID5-config over to a 4-disc-RAID0+1 plus one hotspare, I noticed system-load dropping by a very considerable amount. I haven't got any benchmark-figures to show off though, it's just experiences from a realworld application. Regards Markus
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: