Richard Broersma Jr schrieb:
>> 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?
Because the disc arms didn't need to reposition that much as there would
o with one large volume.
For example, You run two queries with two clients and each queries needs
to read some indices from disk. In this case it more efficient to read
from different volumes than to read from one large volume where the disc
arms has to jump.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: John E. Vincent||Date: 2006-06-14 14:47:01|
|Subject: Performance of pg_dump on PGSQL 8.0|
|Previous:||From: Shaun Thomas||Date: 2006-06-14 14:32:04|
|Subject: Re: Confirmation of bad query plan generated by 7.4|