The two major version upgrade will bring many happy returns. That’s all I can contribute.
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 2:03 PM, Rory Campbell-Lange <rory@campbell-lange.net> wrote:
>
> Apologies for the cross-post to the general list. I realised I should
> have (possibly?) posted here instead. Advice gratefully received.
>
> We've been happy running a database server and replica for some years
> with the following details and specs:
>
> postgres 9.5 (currently)
> supermicro X9DRD-7LN4F
> LSI Megaraid MR9261-8i with BBU
> 250gb raid 1 /
> 224gb raid 10 /db
> 126GB RAM (1066Mhz DDR3)
> 2 x Xeon E5-2609 v2 @ 2.5GHz
>
> Services on the server are scaling up quite quickly, so we are running
> out of disk space for the several hundred databases in the cluster.
> While the disk space is fairly easy to solve, our main issue is CPU
> hitting daily 5 minute peaks of 65% plus under load for complex plpgsql
> queries, causing query backups. While we don't often spill queries to
> disk, running out of RAM is an incipient problem too.
>
> While we could split the cluster there are some management issues to do
> with that, together with our having a policy of local and remote
> replicas.
>
> Consequently we're thinking of the following replacement servers:
>
> postgres 11 (planned)
> supermicro 113TQ-R700W
> LSI MegaRAID 9271-8i SAS/SATA RAID Controller, 1Gb DDR3 Cache (PCIE- Gen 3)
> 500gb raid 1 /
> 2tb raid 10 /db
> with "zero maintenance flash cache protection"
> 256GB RAM (2666MHz DDR4)
> 2x E5-2680 v4 Intel Xeon, 14 Cores, 2.40GHz, 35M Cache,
>
> This configuration gives us lots more storage, double the RAM (with 8
> slots free) and just under 4x CPU (according to passmark) with lots more
> cores.
>
> We're hoping to get two to three years of service out of this upgrade,
> but then will split the cluster between servers if demand grows more
> than we anticipate.
>
> Any comments on this upgrade, strategy or the "zero maintenance" thingy
> (instead of a BBU) would be much appreciated.
>
> Rory
>
