From: | Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inserts optimization? |
Date: | 2006-04-20 19:43:00 |
Message-ID: | 59B70FCB-9AA5-4E46-ABFC-130D13F900CB@khera.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Apr 13, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> This particular server is pretty much what I inherited for now for
> this project.and its Raid 5. There is a new server I am setting up
> soon... 8 disks which we are planning to setup
> 6 disks in RAID 10
> 2 Hot spares
>
> In RAID 10 would it matter that WALL is in the same RAID set?
> Would it be better:
> 4 disks in RAID10 Data
> 2 disks RAID 1 WALL
> 2 hot spares
why do you need two hot spares?
I'd go with 6 disk RAID10 for data
2 disk RAID1 for WAL (and OS if you don't have other disks from which
to boot)
and run nothing else but Postgres on that box.
bump up checkpoint_segments to some huge number like 256 and use the
bg writer process.
if a disk fails, just replace it quickly with a cold spare.
and if your RAID controller has two channels, pair the mirrors across
channels.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Milen Kulev | 2006-04-20 19:45:09 | Re: Quick Performance Poll |
Previous Message | Brendan Duddridge | 2006-04-20 19:29:46 | Recovery will take 10 hours |