| From: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "William Yu" <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Splitting queries across servers |
| Date: | 2005-01-27 21:01:54 |
| Message-ID: | D425483C2C5C9F49B5B7A41F89441547055889@postal.corporate.connx.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Isn't putting the WAL in memory dangerous in case of a power failure?
I would think that RI would be compromised.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of William Yu
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:41 PM
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Splitting queries across servers
With a Quad Opteron (4 memory slots per CPU), you could put 64GB of RAM
onto a single machine using 4GB DIMMs in every slot.
The other option is to explore static memory storage. It's probably too
expensive to put your entire DB onto such a device but moving just the
WAL there would give you a pretty decent jump in write performance. (I
ran some tests way back simulating this by using a RAMDISK to store the
WAL files and got ~60% increase in an update-heavy mix.)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guy Rouillier | 2005-01-27 21:07:39 | Re: [BUGS] My postmaster just crashed ! |
| Previous Message | raptor | 2005-01-27 20:58:06 | change encoding ? |