- Original Message -
> From: David Boreham
> To: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org"
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2012, 16:14
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] hardware advice
>
> On 10/2/2012 2:20 AM, Glyn Astill wrote:
>> newer R910s recently all o
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:51:46AM -0400, Franklin, Dan (FEN) wrote:
>> We're currently using Dell and have had enough problems to think about
>> switching.
>>
>> What about HP?
>
> If you need a big vendor, I think HP is a good choice.
This
On 10/2/2012 2:20 AM, Glyn Astill wrote:
newer R910s recently all of a sudden went dead to the world; no prior symptoms
showing in our hardware and software monitoring, no errors in the os logs,
nothing in the dell drac logs. After a hard reset it's back up as if
nothing happened, and it's an is
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:51:46AM -0400, Franklin, Dan (FEN) wrote:
> > Look around and find another vendor, even if your company has to pay
>
> > more for you to have that blame avoidance.
>
> We're currently using Dell and have had enough problems to think about
> switching.
>
> What about HP
> From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Glyn Astill
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:21 AM
> To: M. D.; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] hardware advice
>
>> From: M. D.
>
>
> From: M. D.
>To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>Sent: Friday, 28 September 2012, 18:33
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] hardware advice
>
>On 09/28/2012 09:57 AM, David Boreham wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 9:46 AM, Craig James wrote:
>>
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM, M. D. wrote:
> On 09/28/2012 09:57 AM, David Boreham wrote:
>>
>> On 9/28/2012 9:46 AM, Craig James wrote:
>>>
>>> Your best warranty would be to have the confidence to do your own
>>> repairs, and to have the parts on hand. I'd seriously consider
>>> putting you
On 09/28/2012 09:57 AM, David Boreham wrote:
On 9/28/2012 9:46 AM, Craig James wrote:
Your best warranty would be to have the confidence to do your own
repairs, and to have the parts on hand. I'd seriously consider
putting your own system together. Maybe go to a few sites with
pre-configured m
On 9/28/2012 9:46 AM, Craig James wrote:
Your best warranty would be to have the confidence to do your own
repairs, and to have the parts on hand. I'd seriously consider
putting your own system together. Maybe go to a few sites with
pre-configured machines and see what parts they use. Order th
On 9/27/2012 1:56 PM, M. D. wrote:
>>
>> I'm in Belize, so what I'm considering is from ebay, where it's unlikely
>> that I'll get the warranty. Should I consider some other brand rather? To
>> build my own or buy custom might be an option too, but I would not get any
>> warranty.
Your best warra
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 03:50:33PM -0500, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 03:44 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> >This 100x this. We used to buy our boxes from aberdeeninc.com and got
> >a 5 year replacement parts warranty included. We spent ~$10k on a
> >server that was right around $18k from d
On 09/27/2012 10:22 PM, M. D. wrote:
On 09/27/2012 02:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, M. D. wrote:
select item.item_id,item_plu.number,item.description,
(select number from account where asset_acct = account_id),
(select number from account where expense_acct = acc
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> On 9/27/2012 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>
>> Careful with AMD, since many (I'm not sure about the latest ones)
>> cannot saturate the memory bus when running single-threaded. So, great
>> if you have a high concurrent workload, quite bad
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 04:39 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> Clarification that the two base machines were about the same price.
>> 48 opteron cores (2.2GHz) or 16 xeon cores at ~2.6GHz. It's been a
>> few years, I'm not gonna testify to the exact numbe
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Evgeny Shishkin wrote:
>
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Boreham
>>> wrote:
>
> We went from Dunnington to Nehalem, and it was
On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Boreham
>> wrote:
We went from Dunnington to Nehalem, and it was stunning how much better
the X5675 was compared to the E7450
On 09/27/2012 04:39 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Clarification that the two base machines were about the same price.
48 opteron cores (2.2GHz) or 16 xeon cores at ~2.6GHz. It's been a
few years, I'm not gonna testify to the exact numbers in court.
Same here. We got really good performance on Opte
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Conversely, we often got MUCH better parallel performance from our
> quad 12 core opteron servers than I could get on a dual 8 core xeon at
> the time.
Clarification that the two base machines were about the same price.
48 opteron cores (2.2
On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 04:08 PM, Evgeny Shishkin wrote:
>
>> from benchmarking on my r/o in memory database, i can tell that 9.1
>> on x5650 is faster than 9.2 on e2440.
>
> How did you run those benchmarks? I find that incredibly hard to believe. Not
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Boreham wrote:
>>>
>>> We went from Dunnington to Nehalem, and it was stunning how much better
>>> the X5675 was compared to the E7450. Sandy Bridge isn't quite that much of a
>>> jump though, so if yo
Please don't take responses off list, someone else may have an insight I'd miss.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM, M. D. wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 02:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, M. D. wrote:
>>>
>>> select item.item_id,item_plu.number,item.description,
>>> (sel
On 9/27/2012 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
Careful with AMD, since many (I'm not sure about the latest ones)
cannot saturate the memory bus when running single-threaded. So, great
if you have a high concurrent workload, quite bad if you don't.
Actually we test memory bandwidth with John McCalp
On 09/27/2012 02:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, M. D. wrote:
select item.item_id,item_plu.number,item.description,
(select number from account where asset_acct = account_id),
(select number from account where expense_acct = account_id),
(select number from account
On 09/27/2012 04:08 PM, Evgeny Shishkin wrote:
from benchmarking on my r/o in memory database, i can tell that 9.1
on x5650 is faster than 9.2 on e2440.
How did you run those benchmarks? I find that incredibly hard to
believe. Not only does 9.2 scale *much* better than 9.1, but the E5-2440
i
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 03:04:51 PM David Boreham wrote:
> On 9/27/2012 2:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > Whatever you do, go for the Intel ethernet adaptor option. We've had so
> > many>
> > >headaches with integrated broadcom NICs.:(
>
> Sound advice, but not a get out of jail card unfo
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 03:44 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> This 100x this. We used to buy our boxes from aberdeeninc.com and got
>> a 5 year replacement parts warranty included. We spent ~$10k on a
>> server that was right around $18k from dell for t
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Boreham wrote:
>>
>> We went from Dunnington to Nehalem, and it was stunning how much better
>> the X5675 was compared to the E7450. Sandy Bridge isn't quite that much of a
>> jump though, so if you don't need that kind of bleeding-edge, you might be
>> able
Hello,
from benchmarking on my r/o in memory database, i can tell that 9.1 on x5650 is
faster than 9.2 on e2440.
I do not have x5690, but i have not so loaded e2660.
If you can give me a dump and some queries, i can bench them.
Nevertheless x5690 seems more efficient on single threaded workloa
On 9/27/2012 2:47 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
On 09/27/2012 02:40 PM, David Boreham wrote:
I think the newer CPU is the clear winner with a specintrate
performance of 589 vs 432.
The comparisons you linked to had 24 absolute threads pitted against
32, since the newer CPUs have a higher maximum c
On 9/27/2012 2:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Whatever you do, go for the Intel ethernet adaptor option. We've had so many
>headaches with integrated broadcom NICs.:(
Sound advice, but not a get out of jail card unfortunately : we had a
horrible problem with the Intel e1000 driver in RHEL for sever
On 09/27/2012 03:55 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Have you tried re-writing this query first? Is there a reason to have
a bunch of subselects instead of joining the tables? What pg version
are you running btw? A newer version of pg might help too.
Wow, yeah. I was just about to say something abo
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, M. D. wrote:
>
> select item.item_id,item_plu.number,item.description,
> (select number from account where asset_acct = account_id),
> (select number from account where expense_acct = account_id),
> (select number from account where income_acct = account_id),
> (se
On 09/27/2012 02:40 PM, David Boreham wrote:
I think the newer CPU is the clear winner with a specintrate
performance of 589 vs 432.
The comparisons you linked to had 24 absolute threads pitted against 32,
since the newer CPUs have a higher maximum cores per CPU. That said,
you're right that
On 09/27/2012 03:44 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
This 100x this. We used to buy our boxes from aberdeeninc.com and got
a 5 year replacement parts warranty included. We spent ~$10k on a
server that was right around $18k from dell for the same numbers and a
3 year warranty.
Whatever you do, go for
On 09/27/2012 01:37 PM, Craig James wrote:
I don't think you've supplied enough information for anyone to give
you a meaningful answer. What's your current configuration? Are you
I/O bound, CPU bound, memory limited, or some other problem? You need
to do a specific analysis of the queries that
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 02:13:01 PM David Boreham wrote:
>> The equivalent Supermicro box looks to be somewhat less expensive :
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101693
>>
>> When you consider downtime and the
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 02:13:01 PM David Boreham wrote:
> The equivalent Supermicro box looks to be somewhat less expensive :
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101693
>
> When you consider downtime and the cost to ship equipment back to the
> supplier, a warranty
On 9/27/2012 1:56 PM, M. D. wrote:
I'm in Belize, so what I'm considering is from ebay, where it's
unlikely that I'll get the warranty. Should I consider some other
brand rather? To build my own or buy custom might be an option too,
but I would not get any warranty.
I don't have any recent ex
On 09/27/2012 01:47 PM, David Boreham wrote:
On 9/27/2012 1:37 PM, Craig James wrote:
We use a "white box" vendor (ASA Computers), and have been very happy
with the results. They build exactly what I ask for and deliver it in
about a week. They offer on-site service and warranties, but don't
p
On 9/27/2012 1:37 PM, Craig James wrote:
We use a "white box" vendor (ASA Computers), and have been very happy
with the results. They build exactly what I ask for and deliver it in
about a week. They offer on-site service and warranties, but don't
pressure me to buy them. I'm not locked in to
On 9/27/2012 1:11 PM, M. D. wrote:
I want to buy a new server, and am contemplating a Dell R710 or the
newer R720. The R710 has the x5600 series CPU, while the R720 has the
newer E5-2600 series CPU.
For this the best data I've found (excepting actually running tests on
the physical hardwar
On 09/27/2012 01:22 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, M. D. wrote:
At this point I'm dealing with a fairly small database of 8 to 9 GB.
...
The on_hand lookup table
currently has 3 million rows after 4 years of data.
...
For both servers I'd have at least 32GB Ram a
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:11 PM, M. D. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I want to buy a new server, and am contemplating a Dell R710 or the newer
> R720. The R710 has the x5600 series CPU, while the R720 has the newer
> E5-2600 series CPU.
>
> At this point I'm dealing with a fairly small database of 8
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, M. D. wrote:
> At this point I'm dealing with a fairly small database of 8 to 9 GB.
...
> The on_hand lookup table
> currently has 3 million rows after 4 years of data.
...
> For both servers I'd have at least 32GB Ram and 4 Hard Drives in raid 10.
For a 9GB datab
Hi everyone,
I want to buy a new server, and am contemplating a Dell R710 or the
newer R720. The R710 has the x5600 series CPU, while the R720 has the
newer E5-2600 series CPU.
At this point I'm dealing with a fairly small database of 8 to 9 GB.
The server will be dedicated to Postgres and
Hi Chris,
A couple comments on the NetApp SAN.
We use NetApp, primarily with Fiber connectivity and FC drives. All of the
Postgres files are located on the SAN and this configuration works well.
We have tried iSCSI, but performance his horrible. Same with SATA drives.
The SAN will definitely be mo
On 7/14/11 11:34 PM, chris wrote:
> Any comments on the configuration? Any experiences with iSCSI vs. Fibre
> Channel for SANs and PostgreSQL? If the SAN setup sucks, do you see a
> cheap alternative how to connect as many as 16 x 2TB disks as DAS?
Here's the problem with iSCSI: on gigabit etherne
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, chris r. wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> Thanks a lot for your very helpful feedback!
>
>> I've tested MD1000, MD1200, and MD1220 arrays before, and always gotten
>> seriously good performance relative to the dollars spent
> Great hint, but I'm afraid that's too expensive f
Hi list,
Thanks a lot for your very helpful feedback!
> I've tested MD1000, MD1200, and MD1220 arrays before, and always gotten
> seriously good performance relative to the dollars spent
Great hint, but I'm afraid that's too expensive for us. But it's a great
way to scale over the years, I'll kee
> Just to add to the conversation, there's no real advantage to putting
> WAL on SSD. Indexes can benefit from them, but WAL is mosty
> seqwuential throughput and for that a pair of SATA 1TB drives at
> 7200RPM work just fine for most folks.
Actually, there's a strong disadvantage to putting W
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Robert Schnabel
wrote:
> I'm curious what people think of these:
> http://www.pc-pitstop.com/sas_cables_enclosures/scsase166g.asp
>
> I currently have my database on two of these and for my purpose they seem to
> be fine and are quite a bit less expensive than the
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:34 AM, chris wrote:
> I was thinking to put the WAL and the indexes on the local disks, and
> the rest on the SAN. If funds allow, we might downgrade the disks to
> SATA and add a 50 GB SATA SSD for the WAL (SAS/SATA mixup not possible).
Just to add to the conversation,
On 7/15/2011 2:10 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
chris wrote:
My employer is a university with little funds and we have to find a
cheap way to scale for the next 3 years, so the SAN seems a good chance
to us.
A SAN is rarely ever the cheapest way to scale anything; you're paying
extra for reliability i
> 1 x Intel Xeon X5670, 6C, 2.93GHz, 12M Cache
> 16 GB (4x4GB) Low Volt DDR3 1066Mhz
> PERC H700 SAS RAID controller
> 4 x 300 GB 10k SAS 6Gbps 2.5" in RAID 10
Apart from Gregs excellent recommendations. I would strongly suggest
more memory. 16GB in 2011 is really on the low side.
PG is u
chris wrote:
My employer is a university with little funds and we have to find a
cheap way to scale for the next 3 years, so the SAN seems a good chance
to us.
A SAN is rarely ever the cheapest way to scale anything; you're paying
extra for reliability instead.
I was thinking to put the WA
Hi list,
My employer will be donated a NetApp FAS 3040 SAN [1] and we want to run
our warehouse DB on it. The pg9.0 DB currently comprises ~1.5TB of
tables, 200GB of indexes, and grows ~5%/month. The DB is not update
critical, but undergoes larger read and insert operations frequently.
My employe
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sven Geisler
Sent: Wed 12/6/2006 1:09 AM
To: Alex Turner
Cc: Alexandru Coseru; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Hardware advice
Hi Alex,
Please check out <http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList> before you
use
t; To: "Alexandru Coseru" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> Cc: <mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Hardware advice
>
>
> >
t;Alexandru Coseru" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Hardware advice
> Hi Alexandru,
>
> Alexandru Coseru schrieb:
>> [...]
>> Question 1:
>>The RAID layout should be:
>>a) 2 hdd in
ecember 05, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Hardware advice
Hi Alexandru,
Alexandru Coseru schrieb:
[...]
Question 1:
The RAID layout should be:
a) 2 hdd in raid 1 for system and pg_xlog and 6 hdd in
raid10 for data ?
b) 8 hdd in raid10 for all ?
c
Hi Alexandru,
Alexandru Coseru schrieb:
> [...]
> Question 1:
>The RAID layout should be:
>a) 2 hdd in raid 1 for system and pg_xlog and 6 hdd in
> raid10 for data ?
>b) 8 hdd in raid10 for all ?
>c) 2 hdd in raid1 for system , 2 hdd in raid1 for pg_xl
Hello..
Yes , sorry for the mistype..
Regards
Alex
- Original Message -
From: "Josh Berkus"
To:
Cc: "Alexandru Coseru" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Hardware advice
Alexandru,
The server will have
Alexandru,
> The server will have kernel 2.1.19 and it will be use only as a postgresql
Assuming you're talking Linux, I think you mean 2.6.19?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the pos
Hello..
I'm waiting for my new system , and meanwhile , i have some questions.
First , here are the specs:
The server will have kernel 2.1.19 and it will be use only as a postgresql
server (nothing else... no named,dhcp,web,mail , etc).
Postgresql version will be 8.2.
It will be heavily us
On 30/5/03 6:17 pm, "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2003, Adam Witney wrote:
>
>> Hi scott,
>>
>> Thanks for the info
>>
>>> You might wanna do something like go to all 146 gig drives, put a mirror
>>> set on the first 20 or so gigs for the OS, and then use the rema
65 matches
Mail list logo
