From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "postgresql performance list" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: best use of an EMC SAN |
Date: | 2007-07-11 14:14:41 |
Message-ID: | 0DA358AF-4CF3-4910-8E48-26403AE8C0AC@fastcrypt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 11-Jul-07, at 10:05 AM, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Assuming we have 24 73G drives is it better to make one big
>> metalun and carve
>> it up and let the SAN manage the where everything is, or is it
>> better to
>> specify which spindles are where.
>
> This is quite a controversial question with proponents of both
> strategies.
>
> I would suggest having one RAID-1 array for the WAL and throw the
> rest of the
This is quite unexpected. Since the WAL is primarily all writes,
isn't a RAID 1 the slowest of all for writing ?
> drives at a single big array for the data files. That wastes space
> since the
> WAL isn't big but the benefit is big.
>
> If you have a battery backed cache you might not need even that.
> Just throwing
> them all into a big raid might work just as well.
Any ideas on how to test this before we install the database ?
>
> --
> Gregory Stark
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philippe Amelant | 2007-07-11 14:16:38 | Re: PostgreSQL publishes first real benchmark |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2007-07-11 14:05:57 | Re: Query Analyser |