The two major version upgrade will bring many happy returns. That’s all I can contribute. > On Mar 5, 2019, at 2:03 PM, Rory Campbell-Lange <rory@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Apologies for the cross-post to the general list. I realised I should > have (possibly?) posted here instead. Advice gratefully received. > > We've been happy running a database server and replica for some years > with the following details and specs: > > postgres 9.5 (currently) > supermicro X9DRD-7LN4F > LSI Megaraid MR9261-8i with BBU > 250gb raid 1 / > 224gb raid 10 /db > 126GB RAM (1066Mhz DDR3) > 2 x Xeon E5-2609 v2 @ 2.5GHz > > Services on the server are scaling up quite quickly, so we are running > out of disk space for the several hundred databases in the cluster. > While the disk space is fairly easy to solve, our main issue is CPU > hitting daily 5 minute peaks of 65% plus under load for complex plpgsql > queries, causing query backups. While we don't often spill queries to > disk, running out of RAM is an incipient problem too. > > While we could split the cluster there are some management issues to do > with that, together with our having a policy of local and remote > replicas. > > Consequently we're thinking of the following replacement servers: > > postgres 11 (planned) > supermicro 113TQ-R700W > LSI MegaRAID 9271-8i SAS/SATA RAID Controller, 1Gb DDR3 Cache (PCIE- Gen 3) > 500gb raid 1 / > 2tb raid 10 /db > with "zero maintenance flash cache protection" > 256GB RAM (2666MHz DDR4) > 2x E5-2680 v4 Intel Xeon, 14 Cores, 2.40GHz, 35M Cache, > > This configuration gives us lots more storage, double the RAM (with 8 > slots free) and just under 4x CPU (according to passmark) with lots more > cores. > > We're hoping to get two to three years of service out of this upgrade, > but then will split the cluster between servers if demand grows more > than we anticipate. > > Any comments on this upgrade, strategy or the "zero maintenance" thingy > (instead of a BBU) would be much appreciated. > > Rory >
