From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How to allocate 8 disks |
Date: | 2008-03-01 18:47:56 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10803011047h533a7ea6xb3a4ecb00b45ec05@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:
> We're upgrading to a medium-sized server, a Dell PowerEdge 2950, dual-quad CPU's and 8 GB memory. This box can hold at most 8 disks (10K SCSI 2.5" 146 GB drives) and has Dell's Perc 6/i RAID controller.
>
> I'm thinking of this:
>
> 6 disks RAID 1+0 Postgres data
> 1 disk WAL
> 1 disk Linux
>
> I've often seen RAID 1 recommended for the WAL. Is that strictly for reliability, or is there a performance advantage to RAID 1 for the WAL?
>
> It seems to me separating the OS and WAL on two disks is better than making a single RAID 1 and sharing it, from a performance point of view.
It's a trade off. Remember that if the single disk hold xlog fails
you've just quite possubly lost your database. I'd be inclined to
either using a RAID-1 of two disks for the OS and xlog, and having
pgsql log to the 6 disk RAID-10 instead of the OS / xlog disk set.
More important, do you have battery backed cache on the controller? A
good controller with a battery backed cache can usually outrun a
larger array with no write cache when it comes to transactions /
writing to the disks.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-03-01 21:03:47 | Re: How to allocate 8 disks |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-03-01 18:17:33 | Re: multi-threaded pgloader needs your tests |