Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Article about PostgreSQL and RAID in Brazil

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: ricardo(at)sqlmagazine(dot)com(dot)br, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org,br(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Article about PostgreSQL and RAID in Brazil
Date: 2004-09-16 21:07:37
Message-ID: 200409161407.37669.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Jim,

> What about benefits from putting WAL and pg_temp on seperate drives?
> Specifically, we have a box with 8 drives, 2 in a mirror with the OS and
> WAL and pg_temp; the rest in a raid10 with the database on it. Do you
> think it would have been better to make one big raid10? What if it was
> raid5? And what if it was only 6 drives total?

OSDL's finding was that even with a large RAID array, it still benefits you to 
have WAL on a seperate disk resource ... substantially, like 10% total 
performance.    However, your setup doesn't get the full possible benefit, 
since WAL is sharing the array with other resources.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Qing ZhaoDate: 2004-09-16 21:20:29
Subject: indexes make other queries slow!
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2004-09-16 21:05:28
Subject: Re: Question about PG on OSX

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group