Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID)

From: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, "Chad Thompson" <chad(at)weblinkservices(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID)
Date: 2003-05-03 07:57:54
Message-ID: 200305030357.54875.darcy@druid.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Friday 02 May 2003 16:10, Josh Berkus wrote:
> More disks is almost always better. Putting WAL on a seperate (non-RAID)
> disk is usually a very good idea.

From a performance POV perhaps. The subject came up on hackers recently and
it was pointed out that if you use RAID for reliability and redundancy rather
than for performance, you need to keep the WAL files on the RAID too.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-05-03 08:02:49 Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID)
Previous Message Becky Neville 2003-05-03 05:56:02 NOT IN doesn't use index?