From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Raid 10 chunksize |
Date: | 2009-04-01 17:04:12 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10904011004u11b7b4a2mb637fa841eba49c2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Stef Telford wrote:
>>
>> Good UPS, a warm PITR standby, offsite backups and regular checks is
>> "good enough" for me, and really, that's what it all comes down to.
>> Mitigating risk and factors into an 'acceptable' amount for each person.
>> However, if you see over a 2x improvement from turning write-cache 'on'
>> and have everything else in place, well, that seems like a 'no-brainer'
>> to me, at least ;)
>
> In that case, buying a battery-backed-up cache in the RAID controller would
> be even more of a no-brainer.
This is especially true in that you can reduce downtime. A lot of
times downtime costs as much as anything else.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-04-01 17:10:16 | Re: Very specialised query |
Previous Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-04-01 17:01:18 | Re: Raid 10 chunksize |