| From: | Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Igor Chudov <ichudov(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB |
| Date: | 2011-09-12 16:09:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4E6E2EC8.8080407@peak6.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 09/11/2011 09:44 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> And Andy is right, you'll have a lot less space. If raid 10 doesn't
> give you enough room, just leave two spare drives for a raid 0
> temporary partition. That will be at least twice as fast as doing
> temporary tables on the raid 6.
Alternatively, throw a lot of memory at the system and point the temp
space at /dev/shm. We've had really good luck doing that here, to avoid
excessive writes to our NVRAM PCIe cards. Make sure the transaction logs
(and any archives) get written to a separate LUN (ideally on a separate
controller) for even more win.
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 800 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-676-8870
sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email-disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shaun Thomas | 2011-09-12 16:22:55 | Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2011-09-12 03:31:01 | Re: RAID Controller (HP P400) beat by SW-RAID? |