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

Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com>
Cc: "Bjoern Metzdorf" <bm(at)turtle-entertainment(dot)de>,"scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
Date: 2002-11-22 13:52:48
Message-ID: 23482.1037973168@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-performance
Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
> If 4 drives are an option, I suggest 2 x RAID1, one for data, and one for WAL and temporary DB space (pg_temp).

Ideally there should be *nothing* on the WAL drive except WAL; you don't
ever want that disk head seeking away from the WAL.  Put the temp files
on the data disk.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: philip johnsonDate: 2002-11-22 14:17:26
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
Previous:From: Mario WeilguniDate: 2002-11-22 07:31:11
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: philip johnsonDate: 2002-11-22 14:17:26
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
Previous:From: Fouad FezziDate: 2002-11-22 08:39:56
Subject: Re: pg_hba.conf file review

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