| From: | "Fernando Hevia" <fhevia(at)ip-tel(dot)com(dot)ar> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Scott Marlowe'" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: new server I/O setup |
| Date: | 2010-01-15 15:49:00 |
| Message-ID: | 19362A5CFCD644EBAF1F611BA2AEFEE9@iptel.com.ar |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Scott Marlowe
>
> I think your first choice is right. I use the same basic
> setup with 147G 15k5 SAS seagate drives and the pg_xlog / OS
> partition is almost never close to the same level of
> utilization, according to iostat, as the main 12 disk RAID-10
> array is. We may have to buy a 16 disk array to keep up with
> load, and it would be all main data storage, and our pg_xlog
> main drive pair would be just fine.
>
> > Do you think a single RAID 1 will become a
> bottleneck?
> > Feel free to suggest a better setup I hadn't considered, it
> would be
> > most welcome.
>
> For 12 disks, most likely not. Especially since your load is
> mostly small randomish writes, not a bunch of big
> multi-megabyte records or anything, so the random access
> performance on the 12 disk RAID-10 should be your limiting factor.
>
Good to know this setup has been tryied succesfully.
Thanks for the comments.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tony McC | 2010-01-15 16:10:40 | Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-15 14:41:55 | Re: Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2) |