Re: WALL on controller without battery?

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WALL on controller without battery?
Date: 2007-07-11 18:53:56
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0707111438490.22948@westnet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Alan Hodgson wrote:

> Presumably he'll have the 2-port configured for write-through operation.

This is the real key to his question. In order to get acceptable
performance for the operating system, Francisco may very well need the OS
disks to be configured in write-back mode. If that's the case, then he
can't put the WAL there; it has to go onto the array with the BBU.

> I would spring for a 4-port with a BBU, though, and then put the WAL on the
> drives with the OS.

This is certainly worth considering. When putting multiple RAID
controllers into a system, I always try to keep them of a similar grade
because it improves the possibility of data recovery in case of a
controller failure. For example, if he had a 4-port with BBU and an
8-port with BBU, the 8-port could be split into two 4-disk RAID-6 volumes,
and then in an emergency or for troubleshooting isolation you could always
get any data you needed off any 4-disk set with either controller. The
little 2-disk unit is providing no such redundancy.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message A. Kretschmer 2007-07-11 19:31:58 Re: bitmap-index-scan slower than normal index scan
Previous Message Alex Deucher 2007-07-11 18:52:01 Re: bitmap-index-scan slower than normal index scan