Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.

From: Matthew <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
To: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
Cc: David Brain <dbrain(at)bandwidth(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
Date: 2008-01-25 17:00:01
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0801251657530.4642@aragorn.flymine.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Greg Smith wrote:
> If you're seeing <100TPS you should consider if it's because you're limited
> by how fast WAL commits can make it to disk. If you really want good insert
> performance, there is no substitute for getting a disk controller with a good
> battery-backed cache to work around that. You could just put the WAL xlog
> directory on a RAID-1 pair of disks to accelerate that, you don't have to
> move the whole database to a new controller.

Hey, you *just* beat me to it.

Yes, that's quite right. My suggestion was to move the whole thing, but
Greg is correct - you only need to put the WAL on a cached disc system.
That'd be quite a bit cheaper, I'd imagine.

Another case of that small SSD drive being useful, I think.

Matthew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tory M Blue 2008-01-25 17:36:18 Re: Postgres 8.2 memory weirdness
Previous Message Matthew 2008-01-25 16:56:24 Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.