| From: | Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sven Geisler <sgeisler(at)aeccom(dot)com>, hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql-Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: how to partition disks |
| Date: | 2006-06-14 14:23:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20060614142344.13558.qmail@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> > raid 10 is of course not questionable. but are you sure that it will
> > work faster than for example:
> > 2 discs (raid 1) for xlog
> > 6 discs (raid 10) for tables
> > 6 discs (raid 10) for indices?
> >
>
> This depends on your application. Do you have a lot of disc reads?
> Anyhow, I would put the xlog always to a RAID 10 volume because most of
> the I/O for update and inserts is going to the xlog.
>
> 4 discs xlog
> 6 discs tables
> 4 discs tables2
I have a question in regards to I/O bandwidths of various raid configuration. Primary, does the
above suggested raid partitions imply that multiple (smaller) disk arrays have a potential for
more I/O bandwidth than a larger raid 10 array?
Regards,
Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shaun Thomas | 2006-06-14 14:32:04 | Re: Confirmation of bad query plan generated by 7.4 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-14 14:20:41 | Re: OT - select + must have from - sql standard syntax? |