From: | Cott Lang <cott(at)internetstaff(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] best arrangement of 3 disks for (insert) |
Date: | 2003-09-15 14:41:11 |
Message-ID: | 1063636871.17237.28.camel@blackbox |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 01:05, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Interesting. Where did you put the OS, and what kind of, and how
> many, SCSI controllers did you have?
I ended up with the OS on the same volume, since it didn't seem to make
any difference. I'm using a SuperMicro 6023P chassis with an Adaptec
2010S ZCR controller (64bit/66mhz).
I wouldn't recommend SuperMicro to anyone else at this point because
instead of hooking up both U320 channels to the 6 drive backplane, they
only hook up one. Half the bandwidth, no redundancy. I already had a
burp on the SCSI channel during a single drive death take out one box.
:(
> (If the WAL ever becomes the vehicle for PITR, then it will have
> to be on a separate disk [and preferably a separate controller],
> even if it slows performance.)
Well, it won't have to... but it's certainly a good idea. :)
If we ever get PITR, I'll be so happy I won't mind rebuilding my boxes,
and hopefully I'll have a better budget at that point. ;^)
BTW, I didn't get WORSE performance with the WALs on separate disks, it
just wasn't any better. Unfortunately I lost the spreadsheet I had all
my results in, so I can't be any more specific.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-15 14:54:22 | Re: Table spaces (was Re: State of Beta 2) |
Previous Message | KG | 2003-09-15 14:10:09 | Initalizing PostgreSQL Database |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2003-09-15 19:15:46 | restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-09-15 08:05:10 | Re: [PERFORM] best arrangement of 3 disks for (insert) performance |