Re: Filesystem and Disk Partitioning for New Server Setup

Thanks for the advice, Rick.

I have an 8 disk chassis, so possible extension paths down the line are
adding raid1 for WALs, adding another RAID10, or creating a 8 disk RAID10.
Would LVM make this type of addition easier?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Rick Otten <rottenwindfish(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

>
> 1) I'd go with xfs. zfs might be a good alternative, but the last time I
> tried it, it was really unstable (on Linux). I may have gotten a lot
> better, but xfs is a safe bet and well understood.
>
> 2) An LVM is just an extra couple of commands. These days that is not a
> lot of complexity given what you gain. The main advantage is that you can
> extend or grow the file system on the fly. Over the life of the database
> it is quite possible you'll find yourself pressed for disk space - either
> to drop in more csv files to load with the 'copy' command, to store more
> logs (because you need to turn up logging verbosity, etc...), you need more
> transaction logs live on the system, you need to take a quick database
> dump, or simply you collect more data than you expected. It is not always
> convenient to change the log location, or move tablespaces around to make
> room. In the cloud you might provision more volumes and attach them to the
> server. On a SAN you might attach more disk, and with a stand alone
> server, you might stick more disks on the server. In all those scenarios,
> being able to simply merge them into your existing volume can be really
> handy.
>
> 3) The main advantage of partitioning a single volume (these days) is
> simply that if one partition fills up, it doesn't impact the rest of the
> system. Putting things that are likely to fill up the disk on their own
> partition is generally a good practice. User home directories is one
> example. System logs. That sort of thing. Isolating them on their own
> partition will improve the long term reliability of your database. The
> main disadvantage is those things get boxed into a much smaller amount of
> space than they would normally have if they could share a partition with
> the whole system.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:28 PM, dstibrany <dstibrany(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I'm about to install a new production server and wanted some advice
>> regarding
>> filesystems and disk partitioning.
>>
>> The server is:
>> - Dell PowerEdge R430
>> - 1 x Intel Xeon E5-2620 2.4GHz
>> - 32 GB RAM
>> - 4 x 600GB 10k SAS
>> - PERC H730P Raid Controller with 2GB cache
>>
>> The drives will be set up in one RAID-10 volume and I'll be installing
>> Ubuntu 14.04 LTS as the OS. The server will be dedicated to running
>> PostgreSQL.
>>
>> I'm trying to decide:
>>
>> 1) Which filesystem to use (most people seem to suggest xfs).
>> 2) Whether to use LVM (I'm leaning against it because it seems like it
>> adds
>> additional complexity).
>> 3) How to partition the volume. Should I just create one partition on /
>> and
>> create a 16-32GB swap partition? Any reason to get fancy with additional
>> partitions given it's all on one volume?
>>
>> I'd like to keep things simple to start, but not shoot myself in the foot
>> at
>> the same time.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://postgresql.nabble.com/Filesystem-and-Disk-Partitioning-for-New-Server-Setup-tp5889074.html
>> Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> )
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>>
>
>
>

--
*THIS IS A TEST*