| From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: index and data tablespaces on two separate drives or one RAID 0? |
| Date: | 2012-07-07 01:03:42 |
| Message-ID: | 4FF78AEE.7070905@hogranch.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 07/06/12 5:51 PM, ach wrote:
>> My fastest postgresql servers have everything on one raid10, using 16 or
>> >20 15000 rpm SAS2 drives on a 1gb flash-backed cache controller.
> Thank you - that affirms what'd been my own growing supposition, and the
> plan
>
>> >why?
> Really? ...Well, I mean, I'd just been going with what I'd seen asserted as
> the solid baseline position: WAL should be on its own separate drive,
> devoid of any interference and/or interruption other than just writing WAL.
> To see that challenged is surprising; are you saying my interpretation on
> that point would be incorrect, and that assumption would be wrong?
putting everything on a single large raid10 ensures the IO is evenly
distributed across all spindles, given enough workload to keep that many
concurrent IOs active.
--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chip Nowacek | 2012-07-07 02:00:01 | two-column primary key (not the typical question) |
| Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2012-07-07 00:56:39 | Re: Help with sql |