Subject | Re: [Firebird-general] Re: Support for Tablespaces/Data-placement in Firebird? |
---|---|
Author | marius adrian popa |
Post date | 2009-09-10T14:30:43Z |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:21 AM, plinehan <plinehan@...> wrote:
for example raid0 is a must where you really need to squeeze the performance
and drives and memory are cheap enough
sata SSD drives are cheap enough even to Romanian market
and we consider for peformance reasons to put the critcal databases there
gluster like shared mounts servers
and the fast ones in memory or raid 0 SSD
Who knows maybe in future we can share the memory pool on servers
(memcached like) and put the tables
on all servers
>raid is de facto to have it on servers , be it backups (raid 5) also
>
> "Leyne, Sean" <Sean@...> wrote:
>
>
>> There are a number of hardware solutions which have made the
>> need for such "hot" management a thing of the past.
>
>
>> Those solutions are:
>
>> - PCIe SSDs (97000 Read and 32000 Write random 4 KB IO/s)!!!
>> - SATA SSDs (35000 Read and 3300 Write random 4 KB IO/s)!
>> - Battery backup cached disk controllers (some with 4GB of
>> write cache)
>> - disk controllers with up to 128GB of SSD based Read cache
>> - increases in RAM supported in servers to 256GB
>
>
>
> Hmmm.... my question would then be, exactly how many Firebird
> servers run on that sort of hardware? I would respectfully
> suggest very few - RAID arrays for some, maybe.
for example raid0 is a must where you really need to squeeze the performance
and drives and memory are cheap enough
sata SSD drives are cheap enough even to Romanian market
and we consider for peformance reasons to put the critcal databases there
>maybe we might need to put the slow tables on SAN like devices or
>
>> I would argue that "hot" management is another feature
>> which Oracle/MS DBAs use to justify their jobs.
>
>
> Well, part of my question was about whether the code was there
> in the original IB6.0 release? As I said, I have memories of
> it being mentioned - it would be a "nice to have" and it
> wouldn't just be performance - selective backups for example?
> Read only tablespaces? It could be an option for advanced
> users while maintaining the current configuration as the
> default - it's just an idea that struck me. Performance will
> not be an issue for me with my "briedcase" type app.
gluster like shared mounts servers
and the fast ones in memory or raid 0 SSD
Who knows maybe in future we can share the memory pool on servers
(memcached like) and put the tables
on all servers
>
> Rgs.
>
>
> Paul...
>
>
>
>> Sean
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: Firebird-general-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: Firebird-general-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: Firebird-general-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/Firebird-generalYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>