Re: best use of an EMC SAN

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
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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