Re: MVCC for massively parallel inserts

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MVCC for massively parallel inserts
Date: 2004-01-06 05:21:58
Message-ID: 3FFA45F6.2020107@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


>>We use a 3Ware 7500 (can't remember the model name for the life of me), with 8
>>drives in a 4x2 RAID 1/0.
>>
>>
>
>I would agree and if you really need the I/O bandwidth you can go to much
>larger stripe sets than even this. The documentation I've seen before
>suggested there were benefits up to stripe sets as large as twelve disks
>across. That would be 24 drives if you're also doing mirroring.
>
>
>

Something I have been toying with is getting two of the 12 drive 3Ware cards
and running RAID 0+1 across them (with LVM). At just under 300 for the cards
and only 80 bucks a drive (80 Gig)... that is alot of space, and a lot
of speed for
not a lot of money.

Sincerely,

Joshua D

>Ideally separating WAL, index, and heap files is good, but you would have to
>experiment to see which works out fastest for a given number of drives.
>
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-01-06 05:28:39 Re: release notes/Appendix E in documentation
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-01-06 05:04:11 Re: psql \d option list overloaded