Re: table spaces

On 12 March 2013 21:59, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:

> 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.

I'm trying to get an understanding of all options.

So out of 6 disks then having 4 in Raid 1+0 configuration and other two in
mirror for WAL. That's another option then for me to test.