Thread: Disk arrangement in a cheap server
I will build a cheap server and I'm in doubt about what would the the
best for performance:
1 - everything in one lonely fast 10,000 rpm Raptor HD;
2 - two cheap 7,200 rpm 16MB cache HDs like this:
disk 1 - system and pg_xlog
disk 2 - pg_data without pg_xlog
or a better arrange suggested by you;
3 - The two cheap HDs above in Raid 0.
There will be 4 GB of memory, Fedora 8 and Postgresql 8.3.
Regards,
Clodoaldo Pinto Neto
Clodoaldo asked:
> I will build a cheap server and I'm in doubt about what would the the
> best for performance:
>
> 1 - everything in one lonely fast 10,000 rpm Raptor HD;
>
> 2 - two cheap 7,200 rpm 16MB cache HDs like this:
>
> disk 1 - system and pg_xlog
> disk 2 - pg_data without pg_xlog
> or a better arrange suggested by you;
>
> 3 - The two cheap HDs above in Raid 0.
>
> There will be 4 GB of memory, Fedora 8 and Postgresql 8.3.
>
You haven't told us much (enough?).
What sort of work load ? (OLTP ? Data Warehouse ? Massive loads and the lots of read-only transactions ?)
How valuable is your data ? If it is worth much at all lean toward an option that maximizes safety (and plan on a good backup strategy, tested and all that).
In general more spindles are faster, but it depends on the actual work load.
Greg Williamson
Senior DBA
GlobeXplorer LLC, a DigitalGlobe company
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
(My corporate masters made me say this.)
On Nov 24, 2007 5:09 AM, Clodoaldo <clodoaldo.pinto.neto@gmail.com> wrote: > I will build a cheap server and I'm in doubt about what would the the > best for performance: > > 1 - everything in one lonely fast 10,000 rpm Raptor HD; > > 2 - two cheap 7,200 rpm 16MB cache HDs like this: > > disk 1 - system and pg_xlog > disk 2 - pg_data without pg_xlog > or a better arrange suggested by you; > > 3 - The two cheap HDs above in Raid 0. From a DBA perspective, none of those seem like a good choice, as there's no redundancy. I'd make the two 7200 RPM drives a RAID-1 and have some redundancy so a single disk failure wouldn't lose all my data. then I'd start buying more drives and a good RAID controller if I needed more performance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/24/07 09:12, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Nov 24, 2007 5:09 AM, Clodoaldo <clodoaldo.pinto.neto@gmail.com> wrote: >> I will build a cheap server and I'm in doubt about what would the the >> best for performance: >> >> 1 - everything in one lonely fast 10,000 rpm Raptor HD; >> >> 2 - two cheap 7,200 rpm 16MB cache HDs like this: >> >> disk 1 - system and pg_xlog >> disk 2 - pg_data without pg_xlog >> or a better arrange suggested by you; >> >> 3 - The two cheap HDs above in Raid 0. > > From a DBA perspective, none of those seem like a good choice, as > there's no redundancy. > > I'd make the two 7200 RPM drives a RAID-1 and have some redundancy so > a single disk failure wouldn't lose all my data. then I'd start > buying more drives and a good RAID controller if I needed more > performance. Remember: disks are *cheap*. Spend an extra US$250 and buy a couple of 500GB drives for RAID 1. You don't mention what OS you'll use, but if you really need cheap then XP & Linux do sw RAID, and FreeBSD probably does too. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA %SYSTEM-F-FISH, my hovercraft is full of eels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHSE6CS9HxQb37XmcRAhRTAKC4gFKymM0f46jKXpUX2NsUog4dOwCg00WP cDE5xB8Qm+3MDtri40HFrRs= =Vnb7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Nov 24, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/24/07 09:12, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> On Nov 24, 2007 5:09 AM, Clodoaldo >> <clodoaldo.pinto.neto@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I will build a cheap server and I'm in doubt about what would the >>> the >>> best for performance: >>> >>> 1 - everything in one lonely fast 10,000 rpm Raptor HD; >>> >>> 2 - two cheap 7,200 rpm 16MB cache HDs like this: >>> >>> disk 1 - system and pg_xlog This doesn't really buy you much. The supposed advantage of having pg_xlog on its own drive is so that the head doesn't need to seek. If it's on the system drive it'll be competing with, at least, syslog. >>> disk 2 - pg_data without pg_xlog >>> or a better arrange suggested by you; >>> >>> 3 - The two cheap HDs above in Raid 0. >> >> From a DBA perspective, none of those seem like a good choice, as >> there's no redundancy. >> >> I'd make the two 7200 RPM drives a RAID-1 and have some redundancy so >> a single disk failure wouldn't lose all my data. then I'd start >> buying more drives and a good RAID controller if I needed more >> performance. It depends on what the box is used for, but for most cases where the data is valuable, that sounds like a much better idea. For batch data crunching, where the data is loaded from elsewhere then processed and reported on, the cost of losing the data is very low, and the value of the machine is increased by RAID0-ing the drives to make the crunching faster... RAID0 could be good. That's probably not the case here. > > Remember: disks are *cheap*. Spend an extra US$250 and buy a couple > of 500GB drives for RAID 1. You don't mention what OS you'll use, > but if you really need cheap then XP & Linux do sw RAID, and FreeBSD > probably does too. > Disks aren't necessarily cheap. Disks are fairly expensive, especially when you need more spindles than will fit into the servers chassis and you need to move to external storage. Disk n+1 is very expensive, likely more expensive than the cheap 1U server you started with. Two, though, does seem to be false economy for a server that'll be running a database, when you can get a 1U chassis that'll take 4 drives pretty cheaply. Cheers, Steve
Why the hell would you buy a 1U chassis in the first place when perfectly good cheap 4U chassis exists that will take 8 or more drives?
1U motherboards are a pain, 1U power supplies are a pain and 1U space for drives sucks.
Most tests I've seen these days show that there is very little actual benefit from seperating pg_xlog and tablespace if you have a half decent controller card. Infact you are better off putting it all on one nice RAID 10 to get the good read performance that splitting it up will loose.
if you don't have a decent controller card, RAID 0 will suck too. Namely onboard SATA RAID often sucks.
Alex
1U motherboards are a pain, 1U power supplies are a pain and 1U space for drives sucks.
Most tests I've seen these days show that there is very little actual benefit from seperating pg_xlog and tablespace if you have a half decent controller card. Infact you are better off putting it all on one nice RAID 10 to get the good read performance that splitting it up will loose.
if you don't have a decent controller card, RAID 0 will suck too. Namely onboard SATA RAID often sucks.
Alex
On Nov 24, 2007 12:06 PM, Steve Atkins < steve@blighty.com> wrote:
This doesn't really buy you much. The supposed advantage of having
On Nov 24, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/24/07 09:12, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2007 5:09 AM, Clodoaldo
>> < clodoaldo.pinto.neto@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I will build a cheap server and I'm in doubt about what would the
>>> the
>>> best for performance:
>>>
>>> 1 - everything in one lonely fast 10,000 rpm Raptor HD;
>>>
>>> 2 - two cheap 7,200 rpm 16MB cache HDs like this:
>>>
>>> disk 1 - system and pg_xlog
pg_xlog on its own drive is so that the head doesn't need to seek. If
it's on the system drive it'll be competing with, at least, syslog.It depends on what the box is used for, but for most cases where the
>>> disk 2 - pg_data without pg_xlog
>>> or a better arrange suggested by you;
>>>
>>> 3 - The two cheap HDs above in Raid 0.
>>
>> From a DBA perspective, none of those seem like a good choice, as
>> there's no redundancy.
>>
>> I'd make the two 7200 RPM drives a RAID-1 and have some redundancy so
>> a single disk failure wouldn't lose all my data. then I'd start
>> buying more drives and a good RAID controller if I needed more
>> performance.
data
is valuable, that sounds like a much better idea.
For batch data crunching, where the data is loaded from elsewhere then
processed and reported on, the cost of losing the data is very low, and
the value of the machine is increased by RAID0-ing the drives to make
the crunching faster... RAID0 could be good. That's probably not the
case
here.Disks aren't necessarily cheap. Disks are fairly expensive, especially
>
> Remember: disks are *cheap*. Spend an extra US$250 and buy a couple
> of 500GB drives for RAID 1. You don't mention what OS you'll use,
> but if you really need cheap then XP & Linux do sw RAID, and FreeBSD
> probably does too.
>
when you need more spindles than will fit into the servers chassis
and you
need to move to external storage. Disk n+1 is very expensive, likely
more expensive than the cheap 1U server you started with.
Two, though, does seem to be false economy for a server that'll be
running a database, when you can get a 1U chassis that'll take 4 drives
pretty cheaply.
Cheers,
Steve
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/25/07 01:28, Alex Turner wrote: > Why the hell would you buy a 1U chassis in the first place when > perfectly good cheap 4U chassis exists that will take 8 or more drives? > > 1U motherboards are a pain, 1U power supplies are a pain and 1U space > for drives sucks. > > Most tests I've seen these days show that there is very little actual > benefit from seperating pg_xlog and tablespace if you have a half decent > controller card. Infact you are better off putting it all on one nice > RAID 10 to get the good read performance that splitting it up will loose. > > if you don't have a decent controller card, RAID 0 will suck too. > Namely onboard SATA RAID often sucks. pg_xlog and tablespaces should be on as much different hardware as possible, to reduce the likelihood that a single part failure will knock out both directory structures. > Alex > > On Nov 24, 2007 12:06 PM, Steve Atkins < steve@blighty.com > <mailto:steve@blighty.com>> wrote: > > > On Nov 24, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 11/24/07 09:12, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> On Nov 24, 2007 5:09 AM, Clodoaldo > >> < clodoaldo.pinto.neto@gmail.com > <mailto:clodoaldo.pinto.neto@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> I will build a cheap server and I'm in doubt about what would the > >>> the > >>> best for performance: > >>> > >>> 1 - everything in one lonely fast 10,000 rpm Raptor HD; > >>> > >>> 2 - two cheap 7,200 rpm 16MB cache HDs like this: > >>> > >>> disk 1 - system and pg_xlog > > This doesn't really buy you much. The supposed advantage of having > pg_xlog on its own drive is so that the head doesn't need to seek. If > it's on the system drive it'll be competing with, at least, syslog. > > >>> disk 2 - pg_data without pg_xlog > >>> or a better arrange suggested by you; > >>> > >>> 3 - The two cheap HDs above in Raid 0. > >> > >> From a DBA perspective, none of those seem like a good choice, as > >> there's no redundancy. > >> > >> I'd make the two 7200 RPM drives a RAID-1 and have some redundancy so > >> a single disk failure wouldn't lose all my data. then I'd start > >> buying more drives and a good RAID controller if I needed more > >> performance. > > It depends on what the box is used for, but for most cases where the > data > is valuable, that sounds like a much better idea. > > For batch data crunching, where the data is loaded from elsewhere then > processed and reported on, the cost of losing the data is very low, and > the value of the machine is increased by RAID0-ing the drives to make > the crunching faster... RAID0 could be good. That's probably not the > case > here. > > > > > Remember: disks are *cheap*. Spend an extra US$250 and buy a couple > > of 500GB drives for RAID 1. You don't mention what OS you'll use, > > but if you really need cheap then XP & Linux do sw RAID, and FreeBSD > > probably does too. > > > > Disks aren't necessarily cheap. Disks are fairly expensive, especially > when you need more spindles than will fit into the servers chassis > and you > need to move to external storage. Disk n+1 is very expensive, likely > more expensive than the cheap 1U server you started with. > > Two, though, does seem to be false economy for a server that'll be > running a database, when you can get a 1U chassis that'll take 4 drives > pretty cheaply. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA %SYSTEM-F-FISH, my hovercraft is full of eels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHSSvAS9HxQb37XmcRAsWOAKCfO79c6HLqLDBNOYrzkaLaj1D47QCghVYF tIhKgVmBpV3XolRtkcd1+m0= =HqMl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----