| From: | Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ray Stell <stellr(at)cns(dot)vt(dot)edu>, "Tomeh, Husam" <htomeh(at)firstam(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_ctl -D? |
| Date: | 2006-10-04 22:38:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20061004223804.52232.qmail@web31814.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
> This may come back to bite me some other way. Having all the data on one
> drive doesn't make any sense to me at all. Would this not cause i/o bottlenecks?
Yes it probably would create i/o bottlenecks to some degree. This is why using a multi-disc
hardware raid-array with a BBU is so popular. There is alot of discussion of this on the
preformance list. A raid 10 array will allow for the increase I/O through-put.
I have seen advice to the effect that hand partioning your database accross muliple drives many
not produce desirable results and is a bad idea. It seems and it is hard to balance tuple growth
evenly across all of the drives. Also most of your data writes are on one table, then you are
limited to the i/o bandwidth of one drive anyway.
However, a better/safer way to relieve i/o conjestion is to move your wal-archieve directory to
another drive.
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jorge alberto | 2006-10-05 03:30:43 | Interface of the R-tree in order to work with postgresql |
| Previous Message | Richard Broersma Jr | 2006-10-04 22:27:10 | Re: postgresql db account |