Re: table spaces

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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?