From owner-freebsd-database Fri Mar 29 17:54:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mail1.acecape.com (mail.acedsl.com [66.114.74.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A483C37B405 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from p65-147.acedsl.com (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) by mail1.acecape.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g2U1sq14025155; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:54:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:03:43 -0500 (EST) From: Francisco Reyes X-X-Sender: fran@zoraida.natserv.net To: Ted Striker Cc: FreeBSD DB List Subject: Re: Raid configuration In-Reply-To: <20020330002333.24233.qmail@graffiti.net> Message-ID: <20020329205657.M52321-100000@zoraida.natserv.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Ted Striker wrote: > We are using RAID10 on Postgres. Also a 4 disk configuration. > > Since our RAID goes through only one card, it sees the whole RAID10 > as one disk. How has the raid helped? Did you do any before/after tests? Care to share specs. Our current setup is a desktop with 1GB ram, Petium III 1.3Ghz CPU. IDE disk for OS and 2 SCSI 10K rpm drives. First SCSI is database and second logs. Currently there is the possibility that I may get $$ for a serious server and I am wondering what to get. From what I have read so far FreeBSD with multiple CPUs does not play nice with PostgreSQL, so that leaves out SMP. I am thinking 4GB ram and 4 15K rpm drives on raid 10. I guess I could do the same thing you did and make them all one volume. On the current machine I rarely ever have more than 2 or 3 connections so I have increased significantly the shared, wal, sort and vacuum buffers. I keep stats of many of the operations, but unfortunately I have increased the buffers exactly when my data was expected to grow signifcantly. Example.. I doubled my WAL buffers, sort and vacuum buffers the same day that I added a new table with 3 million records. One thing that does seem to have helped is increasing the vacuum buffers. Although I have not timed it, but previously it seemed like it took forever to do a vacuum full.. since increasing the buffers to 64MB it doesn't seem to take so long. This we don't measure yet because I have been doing the vacuum fulls manually. Not sure yet how long the vacuum fulls would take and didn't want them to interfere with normal processing.. specially since I have been added more data recently and my time-frames keep changing. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-database" in the body of the message