Re: Hardware performance

From: Adam Witney <awitney(at)sghms(dot)ac(dot)uk>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hardware performance
Date: 2003-07-17 15:04:38
Message-ID: BB3C7996.2008E%awitney@sghms.ac.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


> As I said, I've never personally found it necessary to move WAL off to a
> different physical drive. What do you think is the best configuration
> given the constraint of 5 drives? 1 drive for OS, and 4 for RAID 1+0 for
> data-plus-WAL? I guess the ideal would be to find enough money for that
> 6th drive, use the mirrored pair for both OS and WAL.

I think the issue from the original posters point of view is that the Dell
PE2650 can only hold a maximum of 5 internal drives

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2003-07-17 15:09:44 Re: Hardware performance
Previous Message Joe Conway 2003-07-17 14:57:53 Re: Hardware performance