From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ragnar <gnari(at)hive(dot)is> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large Database Design Help |
Date: | 2006-02-10 22:42:25 |
Message-ID: | 1139611345.22740.151.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:39, Ragnar wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:24 +0100, Markus Schaber wrote:
>
> > For lots non-read-only database workloads, RAID5 is a performance
> > killer. Raid 1/0 might be better, or having two mirrors of two disks
> > each, the first mirror holding system, swap, and the PostgreSQL WAL
> > files, the second one holding the data.
>
> I was under the impression that it is preferable to keep the WAL on
> its own spindles with no other activity there, to take full advantage
> of the sequential nature of the WAL writes.
>
> That would mean one mirror for the WAL, and one for the rest.
> This, of course, may sometimes be too much wasted disk space, as the WAL
> typically will not use a whole disk, so you might partition this mirror
> into a small ext2 filesystem for WAL, and use the rest for files seldom
> accessed, such as backups.
Well, on most database servers, the actual access to the OS and swap
drives should drop to about zero over time, so this is a workable
solution if you've only got enough drives / drive slots for two mirrors.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tim Jones | 2006-02-10 22:43:58 | Re: joining two tables slow due to sequential scan |
Previous Message | Ragnar | 2006-02-10 22:39:54 | Re: Large Database Design Help |