| From: | Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Juan Casero <caseroj(at)comcast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? |
| Date: | 2005-12-24 19:50:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20051224135042.484c6e32.frank@wiles.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:31:54 -0500
Juan Casero <caseroj(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:
> Sorry folks. I had a couple of glasses of wine as I wrote this.
> Anyway I originally wanted the box to have more than two drives so I
> could do RAID 5 but that is going to cost too much. Also, contrary
> to my statement below it seems to me I should run the 32 bit
> postgresql server on the 64 bit kernel. Would you agree this will
> probably yield the best performance? I know it depends alot on the
> system but for now this database is about 20 gigabytes. Not too large
> right now but it may grow 5x in the next year.
You definitely DO NOT want to do RAID 5 on a database server. That
is probably the worst setup you could have, I've seen it have lower
performance than just a single hard disk.
RAID 1 and RAID 1+0 are optimal, but you want to stay far away from
RAID 5. IMHO RAID 5 is only useful on near line backup servers or
Samba file servers where space is more important than speed.
---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
http://www.wiles.org
---------------------------------
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron | 2005-12-24 21:31:30 | Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? |
| Previous Message | Vivek Khera | 2005-12-24 04:00:40 | Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? |