| From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID) |
| Date: | 2003-05-03 08:15:40 |
| Message-ID: | 200305031345.40156.shridhar_daithankar@nospam.persistent.co.in |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Saturday 03 May 2003 13:27, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Friday 02 May 2003 16:10, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > More disks is almost always better. Putting WAL on a seperate (non-RAID)
> > disk is usually a very good idea.
>
> From a performance POV perhaps. The subject came up on hackers recently
> and it was pointed out that if you use RAID for reliability and redundancy
> rather than for performance, you need to keep the WAL files on the RAID
> too.
but for performance reason, that RAID can be separate from the data RAID..:-)
Shridhar
--
"Gee, Toto, I don't think we are in Kansas anymore."
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-05-03 10:04:22 | Re: looking for large dataset |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-05-03 08:02:49 | Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID) |