Re: Hardware for PostgreSQL

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Ow Mun Heng <Ow(dot)Mun(dot)Heng(at)wdc(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, Ketema <ketema(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware for PostgreSQL
Date: 2007-11-01 07:52:21
Message-ID: 472985B5.6010701@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Ow Mun Heng wrote:
>> You're likely better off (performance-wise) putting it on the same disk
>> as the database itself if that one has better RAID, for example.
>
> I'm thinking along the lines of since nothing much writes to the OS
> Disk, I should(keyword) be safe.

Unless it's *always* in the cache (not so likely), reads will also move
the heads...

In the situation you have, I'd put the xlog on the same disk as the data
- mainly because it gives you RAID on it in case the disk breaks.

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Uhl 2007-11-01 11:00:57 Re: hardware and For PostgreSQL
Previous Message Ow Mun Heng 2007-11-01 07:46:01 Re: Hardware for PostgreSQL