Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000
Date
Msg-id 20060809213543.GV40481@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000  (Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>)
Responses Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000  (Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>)
Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000  (Jeff Trout <threshar@torgo.978.org>)
List pgsql-performance
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 hitting a simple mirror set
> before I'd spring for more drives on pg_xlog.  The battery backed cache
> on the pg_xlog likely wouldn't need to be big, just there and set to
> write-back.
>
> Then put all the rest of your cash into disks on a big RAID 10 config,
> and as big of a battery backed cache as you can afford for it and memory
> for the machine.

Actually, my (limited) testing has show than on a good battery-backed
controller, there's no penalty to leaving pg_xlog in with the rest of
PGDATA. This means that the OP could pile all 8 drives into a RAID10,
which would almost certainly do better than 6+2.

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.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: shared_buffer optimization
Next
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and