| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: more 10K disks or less 15K disks |
| Date: | 2010-04-29 04:51:22 |
| Message-ID: | m2kdcc563d11004282151qb7db252g557ec4ec5a6bc385@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks Greg
>
> We do not archive the WALs. We use application-level replication to
> achieve redundancy. WAL archiving was difficult to support with the
> earlier hardware we had ( 6x300G 10K disks Dell 2850) given the
> volumes we were dealing with. The RAID card should be from the same
> manufacturer (LSI in Dell's case).
I don't think Greg was talking of WAL archiving, but more of where are
the WAL files and how much IO throughput the WAL needs compared to the
regular old /data/base store.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-04-29 05:30:54 | Re: more 10K disks or less 15K disks |
| Previous Message | Anj Adu | 2010-04-29 04:45:06 | Re: more 10K disks or less 15K disks |