From: | Mike Rylander <mrylander(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas F(dot)O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
Cc: | PgSql General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WAL/pg_xlog on Another Disk: Redundancy? |
Date: | 2004-12-16 01:52:34 |
Message-ID: | b918cf3d041215175264092591@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:38:45 -0600, Thomas F.O'Connell <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> wrote:
[snip]
> Would a more ideal setup be a six-drive server with a RAID 1+0 on four
> drives with 2 drives dedicated to WAL that mirrored one another? Is
> that overkill? Anyone have recommendations for an appropriate setup for
> a 5-bay server?
A six drive setup would be great. You definitly want some protection
for the WAL data. I've seen up to a 20% increase on write-heavy
servers after moving pg_xlog to it's own disk.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -tfo
>
> --
> Thomas F. O'Connell
> Co-Founder, Information Architect
> Sitening, LLC
> http://www.sitening.com/
> 110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
> Nashville, TN 37203-6320
> 615-260-0005
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>
--
Mike Rylander
mrylander(at)gmail(dot)com
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Wittber | 2004-12-16 03:04:34 | Debian Packages for Postgresql 8.0.0 RC1 |
Previous Message | Paul Tillotson | 2004-12-16 00:54:57 | Re: Performance suggestions? |