Re: Possible Redundancy/Performance Solution

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Dennis Muhlestein" <djmuhlestein(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Possible Redundancy/Performance Solution
Date: 2008-05-07 01:57:53
Message-ID: dcc563d10805061857i5908c269q4d2c5cecd78a8788@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Dennis Muhlestein
<djmuhlestein(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Those are good points. So you'd go ahead and add the pgpool in front (or
> another redundancy approach, but then use raid1,5 or perhaps 10 on each
> server?

That's what I'd do. specificall RAID10 for small to medium drive sets
used for transactional stuff, and RAID6 for very large reporting
databases that are mostly read.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2008-05-07 02:37:09 Re: Possible Redundancy/Performance Solution
Previous Message Vlad Arkhipov 2008-05-07 00:48:36 Re: Seqscan problem