n00b RAID + wal hot standby question

From: "Anton Melser" <melser(dot)anton(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: n00b RAID + wal hot standby question
Date: 2006-12-04 21:11:13
Message-ID: 92d3a4950612041311o632fa3b0u95470acc5b3a2b77@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hi,
I am just starting at a company and we are inheriting a previously
built solution. It looks pretty good but my previous experience with
pg is seriously small-time compared with this...
I am very new at the job, and don't know what hd config we have but it
will be RAID-something I imagine (hey I was working with desktop
"servers" before this!). If that is very important I can find out. We
seem to be saving our WAL to the same partition as PGDATA, and I
notice that we are maxing out a reasonable looking server. The db is
not very big (~4gig, 400meg pgdump), and though I can't see any vacuum
strategy (autovacuum on a 8.1.4 is disabled), we didn't have as much
consistent CPU usage at my old job (with a 6 gig db and MUCH less CPU
and RAM, and probably as many connections), and my vacuum strategy was
also pitiful! Sure, completely different environments, but I am
thinking that WAL replication could be a factor.
So my question... being in complete ignorance of how RAID works (the
performance details)... would it be better to try and separate the WAL
destination from PGDATA? How much of a difference could it make?
Should we wait till the customer starts complaining (no explosion in
traffic/db size realistic for the foreseeable future...)?
Any abuse welcome.
Cheers
Antoine

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brandon Aiken 2006-12-04 21:41:58 Re: n00b RAID + wal hot standby question
Previous Message John McCawley 2006-12-04 19:23:45 Windows Binary for pgDesigner