From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <ghaverla(at)freenet(dot)edmonton(dot)ab(dot)ca>, Jason Hihn <jhihn(at)paytimepayroll(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Pgsql-Novice(at)Postgresql(dot) Org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Ideal Hardware? |
Date: | 2003-10-02 01:10:31 |
Message-ID: | 200310011810.32006.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice pgsql-performance |
Gord,
> I vaguely remember someone (Tom?) mentioning that one of the log
> files probably might want to go on its own partition.
That's general knowledge, but not really applicable to a fast RAID system.
It's more imporant to regular-disk systems; with 4+ disk RAID, nobody has
been able to demonstrate a gain from having the disk separation.
> fast, rebuilding RAID 1 is a pain in the butt! My biggest RAID 10
> is about 10 GB, bundling the new partition from the new disk into
> the RAID 0 is fast, rebuilding the mirror (RAID 1 part) takes 10
> hours! Dual athlon 1.6's and 1 GB of RAM, so I have lots of
> horsepower. Maybe you are going with better RAID than I have,
> but it seems to me that RAID 5 (with spares) is going to be better
> if you ever have to rebuild.
Also depends on the number of disks, the controller, and the balance of read
vs. write activity. I've found RAID 5 with no cache to be dog-slow for OLTP
(heavy write transaction) databases, and use RAID 1 for that.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Williams, Quinton L | 2003-10-02 03:28:11 | PostgreSQL and .NET |
Previous Message | ghaverla | 2003-10-02 00:19:21 | Re: Ideal Hardware? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2003-10-02 07:13:53 | Re: inferior SCSI performance |
Previous Message | ghaverla | 2003-10-02 00:19:21 | Re: Ideal Hardware? |