From: | Suchandra Thapa <s-thapa-11(at)alumni(dot)uchicago(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: performance optimzations |
Date: | 2003-11-13 00:15:58 |
Message-ID: | 1068682558.5193.47.camel@hepcat |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:29, Neil Conway wrote:
> Suchandra Thapa <s-thapa-11(at)alumni(dot)uchicago(dot)edu> writes:
> > I was thinking using about using a raid 1+0 array to hold the
> > database but since I can use different array types, would it be
> > better to use 1+0 for the wal logs and a raid 5 for the database?
>
> It has been recommended on this list that getting a RAID controller
> with a battery-backed cache is pretty essential to getting good
> performance. Search the list archives for lots more discussion about
> RAID configurations.
The server is already using a raid controller with battery backed ram
and the cache set to write back (the server is on a ups so power
failures shouldn't cause problems). I'll look at the list archives
for RAID information.
--
Suchandra Thapa <s-thapa-11(at)alumni(dot)uchicago(dot)edu>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-13 04:09:13 | Query question |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-12 22:29:30 | Re: performance optimzations |