| From: | "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "Marcus Engene" <mengpg2(at)engene(dot)se>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WAL in RAM |
| Date: | 2011-10-28 19:07:44 |
| Message-ID: | 3c355a2313b1472a8ce429e05842f713.squirrel@sq.gransy.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 28 Říjen 2011, 20:40, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> sure, but then you have to have a more complicated setup with a
> drive(s) designated for WAL, another for storage, etc. Also, your
> argument falls away if the WAL is shared with another drive. The era
> of the SSD is here. All new systems I plan will have SSD storage
> unless cost pressures are extreme -- often with a single drive unless
> you need the extra storage. If I need availability, instead of RAID,
> I'll just build hot standby in.
Well, sure - I'm actually a fan of SSDs. Using an SSDs for the datafiles,
or using an SSD for the whole database (including WAL) makes sense, but my
impression was that the OP wants to buy a new drive and use it for WAL
only and that's not really cost effective I guess.
Tomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2011-10-28 19:09:04 | Re: WAL in RAM |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2011-10-28 19:03:32 | Re: WAL in RAM |