Re: Areca 1260 Performance
От | Ron |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Areca 1260 Performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E1GsTKb-0002b2-7G@elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | File Systems Compared (Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
At 11:02 AM 12/7/2006, Gene wrote: >I'm building a SuperServer 6035B server (16 scsi drives). My schema >has basically two large tables (million+ per day) each which are >partitioned daily, and queried independently of each other. Would >you recommend a raid1 system partition and 14 drives in a raid 10 or >should i create separate partitions/tablespaces for the two large >tables and indexes? Not an easy question to answer w/o knowing more about your actual queries and workload. To keep the math simple, let's assume each SCSI HD has and ASTR of 75MBps. A 14 HD RAID 10 therefore has an ASTR of 7* 75= 525MBps. If the rest of your system can handle this much or more bandwidth, then this is most probably the best config. Dedicating spindles to specific tables is usually best done when there is HD bandwidth that can't be utilized if the HDs are in a larger set +and+ there is a significant hot spot that can use dedicated resources. My first attempt would be to use other internal HDs for a RAID 1 systems volume and use all 16 of your HBA HDs for a 16 HD RAID 10 array. Then I'd bench the config to see if it had acceptable performance. If yes, stop. Else start considering the more complicated alternatives. Remember that adding HDs and RAM is far cheaper than even a few hours of skilled technical labor. Ron Peacetree
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: