Thread: hardware requirements under Redhat
Hello:
I know that hardware requirements are dependent upon many factors.
However I need a sanity check on this configuration.
First the purpose of the database.
- database will be used to support a risk analysis group in a small
financial firm.
- there will be daily "bulk" loads to the database
- as well as updates via GUIs (JSP or java programs)
- initial size of the database will be 5Gig, could grow to 20 Gig quickly
- database will support daily batch reports and adhoc quieies/reports
- database is being designed with normalization and referential integrity
in mind. Yes, we are going to think before we build.
- surrogate key will be used on the tables to reduce key size.
it is expected that this will reduce the size of primary
and foreign keys.
I am considering a generic box with a single 2 - 2.6 Gig processor.
2 Gig of RAM and mirrored 200 Gig drives.
Does this config cover the above requirements very well.
Does anybody know if RedHat 9 or Fedora can address 2 Gig
of RAM out of the box?
many thanks
kd
> > >I am considering a generic box with a single 2 - 2.6 Gig processor. >2 Gig of RAM and mirrored 200 Gig drives. > > > Use RAID 5 or 0+1... >Does this config cover the above requirements very well. >Does anybody know if RedHat 9 or Fedora can address 2 Gig >of RAM out of the box? > > > Yes they can. >many thanks > >kd > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
kbd wrote: > Hello: > > I know that hardware requirements are dependent upon many factors. > However I need a sanity check on this configuration. > > First the purpose of the database. > - database will be used to support a risk analysis group in a small > financial firm. > - there will be daily "bulk" loads to the database > - as well as updates via GUIs (JSP or java programs) > - initial size of the database will be 5Gig, could grow to 20 Gig quickly > - database will support daily batch reports and adhoc quieies/reports > - database is being designed with normalization and referential integrity > in mind. Yes, we are going to think before we build. > - surrogate key will be used on the tables to reduce key size. > it is expected that this will reduce the size of primary > and foreign keys. > > > I am considering a generic box with a single 2 - 2.6 Gig processor. > 2 Gig of RAM and mirrored 200 Gig drives. > > Does this config cover the above requirements very well. > Does anybody know if RedHat 9 or Fedora can address 2 Gig > of RAM out of the box? > > many thanks > > kd a.)I would start with a "server class" machine, ie. compaq DL380 or comparable machine. You're saving money (alot) on your software. You get builtin raid scsi, tons of reduntency, pre-engineered server configuration and a three year warranty/support. b.) I would then find what version of linux is supported by the manufacture for thier equipment. ie. cpq I think is supporting mostly redhat 7.3 / 8.0. (and others) c.) Starting out with a good (hardware based) raid scsi setup will allow a online migration path to different levels of raid or increasing storage space as needed, etc. I always like to consider backup space as well and diaster recovery too. ie. why start out with 200 gigs when your needs are much smaller. Keeping your drives matched to your needs (as small as possible) keeps costs/time down on backup/diaster recovery, ie. I like to keep cloned copies of all my drives as backup, in a production environment. d.) Then you can always add (if needed), a second cpu, more memory, more storage, more memory for cache controller etc. e.) Also put some $ into clean power/cooling, if you haven't already. If you're the person in charge of this production setup, tell'em you won't sign off on the setup unless they put just a little money into the hardware, put your foot down! Ok, I feel better now, I just get tried of people building white box generic systems for a "production environment/criticial appilcation" and then having strange problems and blaming the software and giving open source software a bad rap. Just my .02
> Ok, I feel better now, > > I just get tried of people building white box > generic systems for a "production environment/criticial appilcation" > and then having strange problems and blaming the software and giving > open source software a bad rap. > If you go this route I would strongly suggest getting a quote from DELL, IBM and HP/Compaq. Then fax each quote to each vendor and let the bidding war begin. Sincerely, Joshua Drake > Just my .02 > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
> Use RAID 5 or 0+1...
I have had the Mirroring vs RAID 5 debate before.
You would go with RAID 5 to obtain the fault tolerance.
That was my first choice but I was told I was wrong.
kd
jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in message news:<3FE757FA.6060805@commandprompt.com>...
> >
> >
> >I am considering a generic box with a single 2 - 2.6 Gig processor.
> >2 Gig of RAM and mirrored 200 Gig drives.
> >
> >
> >
> Use RAID 5 or 0+1...
>
>
>
> >Does this config cover the above requirements very well.
> >Does anybody know if RedHat 9 or Fedora can address 2 Gig
> >of RAM out of the box?
> >
> >
> >
> Yes they can.
>
>
>
> >many thanks
> >
> >kd
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
> Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
> +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
> Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
kbd wrote:
>>Use RAID 5 or 0+1...
>>
>>
>I have had the Mirroring vs RAID 5 debate before.
>You would go with RAID 5 to obtain the fault tolerance.
>
>That was my first choice but I was told I was wrong.
>
>
>
0+1 is RAID + STRIPE, it is (theoretically) faster than RAID 5 but
requires 4 disks where RAID 5 only requires 3.
RAID1 is ok but slower on writes.
My suggestion is go RAID 0+1 if you can, or RAID 5 with a spare.
Sincerley,
Joshua D. Drake
>kd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in message news:<3FE757FA.6060805@commandprompt.com>...
>
>
>>>I am considering a generic box with a single 2 - 2.6 Gig processor.
>>>2 Gig of RAM and mirrored 200 Gig drives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Use RAID 5 or 0+1...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Does this config cover the above requirements very well.
>>>Does anybody know if RedHat 9 or Fedora can address 2 Gig
>>>of RAM out of the box?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes they can.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>many thanks
>>>
>>>kd
>>>
>>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>>TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>>> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>>> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
>>Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
>>+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
>>Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
>>
>>
>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>>
>>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
> > Use RAID 5 or 0+1... > I have had the Mirroring vs RAID 5 debate before. > You would go with RAID 5 to obtain the fault tolerance. > > That was my first choice but I was told I was wrong. I doubt there is a general rule as to which is better, it will depend upon the individual circumstances (including budget). Were you told why that was the wrong choice? -- Mike Nolan
> >I doubt there is a general rule as to which is better, it will depend >upon the individual circumstances (including budget). > > It is my experience that 0+1 is a bit faster that RAID 5. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >Were you told why that was the wrong choice? >-- >Mike Nolan > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com