From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: table spaces |
Date: | 2013-03-12 21:59:44 |
Message-ID: | 513FA550.9090709@hogranch.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 3/12/2013 2:31 PM, Gregg Jaskiewicz wrote:
> I was basically under impression that separating WAL is a big plus. On
> top of that, having separate partition to hold some other data - will
> do too.
> But it sounds - from what you said - like having all in single logical
> drive will work, because raid card will spread the load amongst number
> of drives.
> Am I understanding that correctly ?
>
both those models have merits.
doing a single raid 10 should fairly evenly distribute the IO workload
given adequate concurrency, and suitable stripe size and alignment.
there are scenarios where a hand tuned spindle layout can be more
efficient, but there's also the possibility of getting write bound on
any one of those 3 seperate raid1's, and having other disks sitting idle.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregg Jaskiewicz | 2013-03-12 22:49:58 | Re: table spaces |
Previous Message | Erik Jones | 2013-03-12 21:54:15 | Age of the WAL? |