From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Reid Thompson <reid(dot)thompson(at)ateb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Solaris 10 ZFS Postgresql request for comments |
Date: | 2006-03-04 03:33:53 |
Message-ID: | 20060304033353.GP82012@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:30:32PM -0500, Reid Thompson wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm querying for feedback/comments. Wondering what the list thinks of
> the following.
>
> Assume this is to provide a production database for a small company or a
> department. Production hours 5am-9pm for the most part so night-time
> downtime if/when necessary would not be a problem.
>
> Platform:
> SUN ultra 20 or intel/amd based PC
> Hard drive1 = OS Solaris 10(+)
> Hard drives2 & 3 = ZFS mirrored pool with PostgreSQL intalled
> Hard drives4-N = ZFS raided PGDATA
>
>
> Would this be considered viable?
> Has anyone implemented anything similar?
> Any obvious pitfalls that anyone is aware of?
I'd recommend drive 1 & 2 be mirrored witheverything but the table data,
which would go on a raid 10 of the rest of the drives via a tablespace.
That way you won't lose the box if drive 1 fails. You also probably
don't want raid5, if you were thinking about that...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-03-04 03:36:23 | Re: [Fwd: Schema Question] |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-03-04 03:30:21 | Re: Insert fails when it shouldn't |