From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
Cc: | Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WAL+Os on a single disk |
Date: | 2010-06-24 13:31:50 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikvN_pH0Q5lWAyAeNml8jTNftjV8igS-_1ZK480@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>>
>>> We have a 12 x 600G hot swappable disk system (raid 10)
>>> and 2 internal disk ( 2x 146G)
>>>
>>> Does it make sense to put the WAL and OS on the internal disks
>>
>> So for us, the WAL and OS and logging on the same data set works well.
>
> Generally, it is recommended that you put the WAL onto a separate disc to
> the data. However, in this case, I would be careful. It may be that the 12
> disc array is more capable. Specifically, it is likely that the 12-disc
> array has a battery backed cache, but the two internal drives (RAID 1
> presumably) do not. If this is the case, then putting the WAL on the
> internal drives will reduce performance, as you will only be able to commit
> a transaction once per revolution of the internal discs. In contrast, if the
> WAL is on a battery backed cache array, then you can commit much more
> frequently.
This is not strictly true of the WAL, which writes sequentially and
more than one transaction at a time. As you said though, test it to
be sure.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Janning Vygen | 2010-06-24 13:45:31 | Re: Write performance |
Previous Message | Janning | 2010-06-24 13:30:53 | Re: Write performance |