From: | "Anjan Dave" <adave(at)vantage(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Vivek Khera" <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Database Server Tuning |
Date: | 2004-06-10 16:02:46 |
Message-ID: | 4BAFBB6B9CC46F41B2AD7D9F4BBAF7850982D2@vt-pe2550-001.vantage.vantage.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Vivek,
Was there anything specific that helped you decide on a RAID-5 and not a RAID-10?
I have my DBs on RAID10, and would soon be moving them on FC drives, and i am considering RAID-10.
Thanks,
Anjan
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com]
Sent: Tue 3/2/2004 4:27 PM
To: Vivek Khera; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Database Server Tuning
Vivek,
> I did a bunch of testing with different RAID levels on a 14 disk
> array. I finally settled on this: RAID5 across 14 disks for the
> data, the OS (including syslog directory) and WAL on a RAID1 pair on
> the other channel of the same controller (I didn't want to spring for
> dual RAID controllers). The biggest bumps in performance came from
> increasing the checkpoint_buffers since my DB is heavily written to,
> and increasing sort_mem.
With large RAID, have you found that having WAL on a seperate array actually
boosts performance? The empirical tests we've seen so far don't seem to
support this.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2004-06-10 16:51:24 | Re: Database Server Tuning |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-10 15:59:05 | Re: *very* inefficient choice made by the planner (regarding |