Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
> > A note about SCSI vs IDE... I have recently tried both on a dual P3 with > > 1gb of ram running Mandrake 7.2. I was amazed the idle CPU's were > > running near 20-23% with nothing other then a bash shell running on 2 > > IBM IDE ATA 100 drives. I converted to 2 IBM SCSI U2 drives and the idle > > CPU's went down to 0-2%. This was a tremendous difference. I feel SCSI > > is a must. I have a suspicion that you didn't try using hdparm first to tune up your disks. Have you set them up with 32-bit transfers, UDMA, and unmasked interrupts? I am running a single 40 GB Maxtor 5400 UDMA/66 disk, and even when I am stress testing the database, about 96% on each CPU goes to user-space postmaster processes. The system CPU consumption rarely goes above 4%. And FYI, I am running a dual 1 GHz P3 on a VP6. The IDE disk is connected to thepromise controller. I haven't tried it on the VIA, but I suspect the results would be the same. The only way I can see your CPU consumption going to 20% is if you are using PIO, and haven't tuned up your disks. > > I would like to try one of those new Promise Supertrak ATA 100 RAID 5 > > cards or hear from someone who has tried one... Anyone? I read they have > > the same onboard CPU as the Adaptec ultra160 RAID 5 card and can have up > > to twice as much onboard cache (128mb) as the SCSI counterpart. It is > > true hardware level raid 5 with a hot spare and each of the up to 6 > > drives is on its own interface. I would think this would alleviate the > > onboard IDE / CPU burn and improve the IDE performance tremendously. > > > > The cost of the Promise Supertrak is over $100 more than the Adaptec > > ultra 160 card, but the ATA 100 drives are very inexpensive compared to > > SCSI. I found that you could get more than 4x the space for 25% less > > money with IDE ATA 100 RAID 5. > > > > If this is true... IDE RAID 5 might be a good alternative to SCSI. UDMA without raid is already a good alternative to SCSI. > > As for the Intel vs Sparc, well I use both. The Intel's are great when > > you need Windows but when you need performance the Intel just can't keep > > up with the stability, raw power or speed of Solaris 8 on a Sun machine. I'd dispute that. Admittedly, I haven't used the latest and greatest in Sun hardware due to cost issues, but my experience says that Linux+Intel is pretty much as good as SPARC+Solaris as far as stability goes. I suppose for heavy number crunching, the late UltraSPARC CPUs are much better, and Sun systems to generally feel more responsive than standard PCs. It all depends on how much you want to spend, and what sort of performance are you after. > > As for the cost, we use HP dual 700 CPU x86 Netservers which cost about > > $30,000ea and with the Sun Developer program we saved 40% on our Sun > > machines which put the Sun E220 dual CPU in the same ballpark only it > > will run circles around the HP and I think anyone who develops with Java > > can become a Sun Developer. $30,000 each??? And it is only a dual 700 P3? You are joking right? I have just built a dual 1 GHz P3 server with 1 GB of PC133 CAS2, and everything else for signifficantly less than $1,500! Where did the remaining $28,500 go? 4 TB hardware RAID5 disk array with 1 GB of cache and 10 hot spare disks? Because that would cost you roughly $28K... Regards. Gordan ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
On 04 May 2001 23:38:04 +1000, Justin Clift wrote: > When I checked the Promise site about a week and a half ago, there > wasn't any mention of Linux support, and doing a quick search for it > around the Net didn't find any Linux support for this controller either. > > Does anyone know of working Linux drivers for it? Guess who has one... The driver is a real pain to install because binary only. The thing does smoke when it runs though! Some IDE stuff trashed my server and I blamed the Promise card when in fact it was a bad IDE port on the MB. I have it in another machine now. There are issues with kernel 2.4.x read Alan Cox's ramblings on it. Cheers Tony Grant -- RedHat Linux on Sony Vaio C1XD/S http://www.animaproductions.com/linux2.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
A note about SCSI vs IDE... I have recently tried both on a dual P3 with 1gb of ram running Mandrake 7.2. I was amazed the idle CPU's were running near 20-23% with nothing other then a bash shell running on 2 IBM IDE ATA 100 drives. I converted to 2 IBM SCSI U2 drives and the idle CPU's went down to 0-2%. This was a tremendous difference. I feel SCSI is a must. I would like to try one of those new Promise Supertrak ATA 100 RAID 5 cards or hear from someone who has tried one... Anyone? I read they have the same onboard CPU as the Adaptec ultra160 RAID 5 card and can have up to twice as much onboard cache (128mb) as the SCSI counterpart. It is true hardware level raid 5 with a hot spare and each of the up to 6 drives is on its own interface. I would think this would alleviate the onboard IDE / CPU burn and improve the IDE performance tremendously. The cost of the Promise Supertrak is over $100 more than the Adaptec ultra 160 card, but the ATA 100 drives are very inexpensive compared to SCSI. I found that you could get more than 4x the space for 25% less money with IDE ATA 100 RAID 5. If this is true... IDE RAID 5 might be a good alternative to SCSI. As for the Intel vs Sparc, well I use both. The Intel's are great when you need Windows but when you need performance the Intel just can't keep up with the stability, raw power or speed of Solaris 8 on a Sun machine. As for the cost, we use HP dual 700 CPU x86 Netservers which cost about $30,000ea and with the Sun Developer program we saved 40% on our Sun machines which put the Sun E220 dual CPU in the same ballpark only it will run circles around the HP and I think anyone who develops with Java can become a Sun Developer. Steve Ackerman _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
On Thursday 03 May 2001 04:48 pm, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > Those others, like "stable" and "secure". "Enjoyable" is obviously > subjective (FreeBSD isn't very enjoyable for me, who has used Linux > and Solaris extensively and much prefer SysV to BSD). OK, I'll buy that the post was a bit much - my point was just that comparisons of flavors of UNIX seem, IMHO to be pointless, and flinging accusations of FUD are even more pointless. You can make just about any flavor of UNIX (unless it's under serious development, or seriously flawed) about as stable and secure as any other. Unlike comparisons of very different OSes (Windows vs Unix vs MacOS), comparisons of UNIX seem, to me, to come down to personal preference. (Although, many would argue the same for the other comparisons as well). Let's save the FUD accusations for much more serious matters. Michelle -- Michelle Murrain, Ph.D. President Norwottuck Technology Resources [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norwottuck.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql/Netra
GH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Somebody claimed that my post was uninformed...yet RedHat is all of Linux > now? No, of course not. Red Hat is more than Linux, Linux is more than our version of it: Red Hat Linux. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql/Netra
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:52:24PM -0700, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > It's sitting right here on my desk. Ask whatever you want. > > Yes they are better web servers than DBMS servers but if you > database is small enough to cache in RAM then who care if > the Netra uses slow disks? > > All that talk on this list about Linux vs. BSD is silly. > Why bother when you can have Solaris 8 on SPARC hardware? Does anybody ever actually *READ* the $%@#-ing threads? I never said a word about Linux. RedHat does *NOT* equal LINUX! Somebody claimed that my post was uninformed...yet RedHat is all of Linux now? If you are going to refute a statement, please at least have the decency to READ it. Can we end this? gh ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
Michelle Murrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 03 May 2001 11:58 am, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > GH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. > > > > What do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to > > > > run RH 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some > > > > compelling FreeBSD benefits. > > > > > > FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more > > > enjoyable to work with than RedHat. > > > > Hardly. Now, could you stop your uniformed flamebaiting please? > > FreeBSD is nice in some respects (and not in others), but coming with > > FUD like you are doesn't do anyone any good. > > I hate to say it but saying that FreeBSD might be better than Red Hat is > hardly flamebait or FUD. Those others, like "stable" and "secure". "Enjoyable" is obviously subjective (FreeBSD isn't very enjoyable for me, who has used Linux and Solaris extensively and much prefer SysV to BSD). -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql/Netra
> Yes they are better web servers than DBMS servers but if you > database is small enough to cache in RAM then who care if > the Netra uses slow disks? > > All that talk on this list about Linux vs. BSD is silly. > Why bother when you can have Solaris 8 on SPARC hardware? Easy: Cost. (And, there are other reasons, of course, but I won't turn this into a Solaris-bash. : ) ) steve ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql/Netra
It's sitting right here on my desk. Ask whatever you want. Yes they are better web servers than DBMS servers but if you database is small enough to cache in RAM then who care if the Netra uses slow disks? All that talk on this list about Linux vs. BSD is silly. Why bother when you can have Solaris 8 on SPARC hardware? On the Netra Sun has added "LOM" this is a little shell-like program burned in ROM that runs on some micro controller, not on the SPARC CPU. It stays up even when the CPU, RAM and disks are powered off and the cooling fans are off. They still have the old OK> prompt but you don't need to use it much. LOM will run when Solaris is up too. The Netra is best when you stack them in a rack. You get a system with 40 CPUs, 80 Disks, 8Gb network bandwidth, for under $40K All in one telco rack. > -Original Message- > From: Hunter Hillegas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:51 PM > To: Albertson, Chris > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql > > > I was wondering about those boxes, though more so as Web > servers... I'm > interested in any other thoughts you have on 'em. > > Hunte > > > From: "Albertson, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 13:01:15 -0700 > > To: "'Willis, Ian (Ento, Canberra)'" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Ryan > > Mahoney'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql > > > > > > We just bought a brand new Sun Netra X1. List pice from Sun was > > $995.00. Yes under one grand. It is a 1U tall box. For once > > Sun beats Intel prices. It comes with Solaris 8 preinstaled. > > Basically just plug in and boot. We got a discount to $907. > > > > We upgraded the RAM to 1GB (it uses PC133 RAM) > > We also added a second drive and do a two way mirror. > > I tested it by pulling the power cable from one drive > > while Postgres was running. It worked, no crash. > > The box is not super fast but usfull for many purposes. > > My test database has 1M rows by 40 columns. With the > > 1GB RAM perforance is just "OK". > > > > I used a dual Xeon box (2MB L2 cache, 1GB RAM, SCSI 160) > > that was faster then the Sun Netera X1 but cost 6x more. > > > > My Ideal box would have multiple CPUs, at least SCSI 160 drives > > or better a hardware RAID box and 4GB RAM. > > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Willis, Ian (Ento, Canberra) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:03 AM > >> To: 'Ryan Mahoney'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql > >> > >> > >> I would make sure that an intel box won't suit before looking > >> at sun. Simply > >> for cost and if you're planning to run linux on it sun > >> support will be shit > >> because they don't have skills in that area. > >> Databases thrive on more spindles, separate system spindles > >> from the db > >> spindles and swap spindles, look at separating index tables > >> from data tables > >> and the WAL. > >> Raid 3 or striping may be more suitable for the WAL (what > >> happens if you > >> loose the WAL?) whereas raid 5 or a combination for 1/5 > for data and > >> indexes. The chunk size on a raid set may also be worth > >> pursuing as a means > >> of squeezing better performance from a dedicated db machine. > >> > >> -- > >> Ian Willis > >> Systems Administrator > >> Division of Entomology CSIRO > >> GPO Box 1700 > >> Canberra ACT 2601 > >> ph 02 6246 4391 > >> fax 02 6246 4000 > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Ryan Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2001 8:35 AM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql > >> > >> > >> Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran > >> between 30% an > >> 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a > >> Penguin Computing > >> 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > >> > >> Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more > >> robust... looking > >> into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on > >> running R
Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
> Unfortunately there aren't any great java ports for FreeBSD. Check out the linux compatibility java support linux-jdk13 I've found it to be about 95% as fast as something running under native linux, but I get the perk of BSDs memory management and I can typically run 1.4 times the apps/processes under BSD (linux dies). With that, I gave up on the extra 5% speed and went for the higher load and haven't looked back. -sc > Linux also enjoys the attention of many bigger players such as IBM, Compaq. Let it... I'd rather have everyone focus on Linux so long as the emmulation continues to be quick. If IBM tried to release stuff for both Linux and BSD, it'd tack another week-month onto their development time. Eventually they'll wisen up, but for now, emmulation's paved my way to gold. -sc > Dave PGP signature ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
I think that all this fat should be put on the fire. A nice performance test on the same high end hardware would be good. Is there a test suite that would suit? Would anyone expect more than a 5% difference in performance between the OS's even using the dreaded ext2 and not the reiserfs or SGI XFS. There could there be wagers between the loudest in both camps? A 5% betting premium could apply with all proceeds going to the postgresl development team :) My preference for using linux is that I like the licence and spirit of linux more and assuming that the performance difference is negligable I'll stick with it. Similiarly many find that the BSD licence and associated community's stricter development methodologies appeals more and they too will stick with that whilst there is a negligable performance difference. But realistly after using both I find that you can make one choke while the other sings if you chose your test carefully enough and currently they get similiar performance results on most general application tests. -- Ian Willis -Original Message- From: GH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2001 10:53 AM To: Ryan Mahoney Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. What > do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to run RH > 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some compelling > FreeBSD benefits. FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more enjoyable to work with than RedHat. If you had ever seen the power and beauty of FreeBSD, you would not continue using RedHat by choice. You probably need to see it to believe it. I encourage you to check it out sometime, but you should have no problem at all running PostgreSQL on RedHat. I'm out. gh > > BTW, the input on hardware was very useful. I ordered a Dell today w/ gig > ram, dual 1ghz PIII and Raid 1 18gig scsi hard drives. I'm excited! > > -r > > At 06:52 PM 5/2/01 -0500, GH wrote: > > >On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:35:13PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an > > > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing > > > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > > > > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking > > > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 > > > on this machine. > > > >I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running > >something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system > >and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment. > > > > > >gh > > > >*snip* > > > You're input is tremendously appreciated! > > > > > > -r > > > > > > Ryan Mahoney > > > CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > t. 718-721-0338 > > > m. 718-490-5464 > > > www.paymentalliance.net > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > > > > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl > > > > > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
While I certainly have to agree with all of the points regarding FreeBSD's ease of use, and security I have one major critisism. Unfortunately there aren't any great java ports for FreeBSD. Linux also enjoys the attention of many bigger players such as IBM, Compaq. Dave - Original Message - From: "GH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ryan Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. What > > do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to run RH > > 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some compelling > > FreeBSD benefits. > > FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more > enjoyable to work with than RedHat. If you had ever seen the power and > beauty of FreeBSD, you would not continue using RedHat by choice. > > You probably need to see it to believe it. > I encourage you to check it out sometime, but you should have no problem > at all running PostgreSQL on RedHat. > > > I'm out. > > gh > > > > > BTW, the input on hardware was very useful. I ordered a Dell today w/ gig > > ram, dual 1ghz PIII and Raid 1 18gig scsi hard drives. I'm excited! > > > > -r > > > > At 06:52 PM 5/2/01 -0500, GH wrote: > > > > >On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:35:13PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an > > > > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing > > > > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > > > > > > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking > > > > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 > > > > on this machine. > > > > > >I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running > > >something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system > > >and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment. > > > > > > > > >gh > > > > > >*snip* > > > > You're input is tremendously appreciated! > > > > > > > > -r > > > > > > > > Ryan Mahoney > > > > CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > t. 718-721-0338 > > > > m. 718-490-5464 > > > > www.paymentalliance.net > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > > > > > > > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > > > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > >Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
We just bought a brand new Sun Netra X1. List pice from Sun was $995.00. Yes under one grand. It is a 1U tall box. For once Sun beats Intel prices. It comes with Solaris 8 preinstaled. Basically just plug in and boot. We got a discount to $907. We upgraded the RAM to 1GB (it uses PC133 RAM) We also added a second drive and do a two way mirror. I tested it by pulling the power cable from one drive while Postgres was running. It worked, no crash. The box is not super fast but usfull for many purposes. My test database has 1M rows by 40 columns. With the 1GB RAM perforance is just "OK". I used a dual Xeon box (2MB L2 cache, 1GB RAM, SCSI 160) that was faster then the Sun Netera X1 but cost 6x more. My Ideal box would have multiple CPUs, at least SCSI 160 drives or better a hardware RAID box and 4GB RAM. > -Original Message- > From: Willis, Ian (Ento, Canberra) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:03 AM > To: 'Ryan Mahoney'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql > > > I would make sure that an intel box won't suit before looking > at sun. Simply > for cost and if you're planning to run linux on it sun > support will be shit > because they don't have skills in that area. > Databases thrive on more spindles, separate system spindles > from the db > spindles and swap spindles, look at separating index tables > from data tables > and the WAL. > Raid 3 or striping may be more suitable for the WAL (what > happens if you > loose the WAL?) whereas raid 5 or a combination for 1/5 for data and > indexes. The chunk size on a raid set may also be worth > pursuing as a means > of squeezing better performance from a dedicated db machine. > > -- > Ian Willis > Systems Administrator > Division of Entomology CSIRO > GPO Box 1700 > Canberra ACT 2601 > ph 02 6246 4391 > fax 02 6246 4000 > > > -Original Message- > From: Ryan Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2001 8:35 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql > > > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran > between 30% an > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a > Penguin Computing > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more > robust... looking > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on > running Red Hat 7.1 > on this machine. > > Before I order, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or > recommendations. I have been considering getting a Sun > machine... but I > don't know if there is a benefit. Also, are there any special > considerations when running RAID and dual CPU? > > You're input is tremendously appreciated! > > -r > > Ryan Mahoney > CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > t. 718-721-0338 > m. 718-490-5464 > www.paymentalliance.net > > ---(end of > broadcast)--- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
I would make sure that an intel box won't suit before looking at sun. Simply for cost and if you're planning to run linux on it sun support will be shit because they don't have skills in that area. Databases thrive on more spindles, separate system spindles from the db spindles and swap spindles, look at separating index tables from data tables and the WAL. Raid 3 or striping may be more suitable for the WAL (what happens if you loose the WAL?) whereas raid 5 or a combination for 1/5 for data and indexes. The chunk size on a raid set may also be worth pursuing as a means of squeezing better performance from a dedicated db machine. -- Ian Willis Systems Administrator Division of Entomology CSIRO GPO Box 1700 Canberra ACT 2601 ph 02 6246 4391 fax 02 6246 4000 -Original Message- From: Ryan Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2001 8:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 on this machine. Before I order, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or recommendations. I have been considering getting a Sun machine... but I don't know if there is a benefit. Also, are there any special considerations when running RAID and dual CPU? You're input is tremendously appreciated! -r Ryan Mahoney CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] t. 718-721-0338 m. 718-490-5464 www.paymentalliance.net ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
At 7:28 +0200 5/2/2001, Christian Marschalek wrote: >Maybe a AMD Athlon 1.33GHZ would be better.. It's a very fast CPU and I >don't know if PostgreSQL runns faster on dual since I don't know if it >can handle the load balancing? >Well.. GIG of Ram is never bad... :) I would think that dual CPU's would help immensely due to the multiple postgres processes running simultaneously. -- Cafard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] qu'est-ce que tu penses? AIM:pr0j2501 Matt Kane's Brain http://mkb.n3.net ===jive turkey http://jive-turkey.n3.net=== ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
> Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more > robust... looking > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on > running Red Hat 7.1 > on this machine. Maybe a AMD Athlon 1.33GHZ would be better.. It's a very fast CPU and I don't know if PostgreSQL runns faster on dual since I don't know if it can handle the load balancing? Well.. GIG of Ram is never bad... :) SCSI Raid should secure your data also. You should use IBM HDs. They never brake in a million years ;) Well and if.. You habe 5 years garantie... > You're input is tremendously appreciated! Don't know if sun machines help in your case since I don't know suns ;) But I guess others could help you better if they knew some more details about the use of the server. greets ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
