From: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | mbguy2000-1(at)yahoo(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transaction Log |
Date: | 2007-08-29 19:54:05 |
Message-ID: | 46D5CEDD.5010303@mark.mielke.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
mbguy2000-1(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
> For best performance, the transaction log should be on a separate disk.
>
> Does the writing of the log benefit from a battery backed controller
> as well? If not, what do people think about writing the transaction
> log to a flash card or the like?
How popular are the battery backed RAM drives that exist today? I don't
recall seeing them spoken about in this mailing list. The local geek
shop has these devices on sale. Are they still too expensive?
For those that don't know what I am talking about - they are PCI devices
that present themselves as a hard drive, but are filled with commodity
RAM instead of a magnetic platter, and a battery that lasts a few weeks
without external power.
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2007-08-29 20:11:32 | Re: Transaction Log |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2007-08-29 19:26:06 | Re: Shared memory usage |