| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>, Steve Poe <spoe(at)sfnet(dot)cc>, paul(at)oxton(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [SPAM?] Re: PG8 Tuning |
| Date: | 2005-08-16 16:25:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20050816162531.GB32695@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 09:12:31AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> However, you are absolutely correct in that it's *relative* advice, not
> absolute advice. If, for example, you're using a $100,000 EMC SAN as your
> storage you'll probably be better off giving it everything and letting its
> controller and cache handle disk allocation etc. On the other hand, if
> you're dealing with the 5 drives in a single Dell 6650, I've yet to encounter
> a case where a separate xlog disk did not benefit an OLTP application.
I've been asked this a couple of times and I don't know the answer: what
happens if you give XLog a single drive (unmirrored single spindle), and
that drive dies? So the question really is, should you be giving two
disks to XLog?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"[PostgreSQL] is a great group; in my opinion it is THE best open source
development communities in existence anywhere." (Lamar Owen)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-08-16 16:31:47 | Re: [SPAM?] Re: PG8 Tuning |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-08-16 16:12:31 | Re: [SPAM?] Re: PG8 Tuning |