| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Qingqing Zhuo <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RAID0 and pg_xlog |
| Date: | 2005-09-09 14:43:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1126277036.15992.26.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 16:15, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:02:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:40, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:47:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhuo wrote:
> > > > Xlog will be the only believable data if your system crashed. So it is a dangerous practice to put xlog stuff in RAID0.
> > >
> > > No more or less so than putting your main database on RAID0. If any
> > > drive fails, you lose everything.
> >
> > Sounds like a good place to have replication.
>
> If you used syncronous replication, maybe. Otherwise failure of any
> drive means you just lost data. And remember that the more drives you
> have in your array the more likely you'll have a failure in a given
> time period.
>
> Basically, if you can afford to setup replication on 2 machines with
> RAID0 you can afford to setup RAID10 on one machine, which will usually
> be a better bet.
Yeah, I was thinking pgpool here.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Terry Lee Tucker | 2005-09-09 14:49:59 | Re: Route Miles |
| Previous Message | Matt Miller | 2005-09-09 14:40:00 | Re: Route Miles |