From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | BBU Cache vs. spindles |
Date: | 2010-10-07 23:38:04 |
Message-ID: | 4CAE59DC.4060407@pinpointresearch.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-www |
I'm weighing options for a new server. In addition to PostgreSQL, this
machine will handle some modest Samba and Rsync load.
I will have enough RAM so the virtually all disk-read activity will be
cached. The average PostgreSQL read activity will be modest - a mix of
single-record and fairly large (reporting) result-sets. Writes will be
modest as well but will come in brief (1-5 second) bursts of individual
inserts. The rate of insert requests will hit 100-200/second for those
brief bursts.
So...
Am I likely to be better off putting $$$ toward battery-backup on the
RAID or toward adding a second RAID-set and splitting off the WAL
traffic? Or something else?
Cheers,
Steve
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sander, Ingo (NSN - DE/Munich) | 2010-10-08 04:53:18 | Re: Runtime dependency from size of a bytea field |
Previous Message | Aaron Turner | 2010-10-07 22:11:29 | Re: large dataset with write vs read clients |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martin Atukunda | 2010-10-08 07:08:04 | Re: RSS should contain URL to source code |
Previous Message | Gabriele Bartolini | 2010-10-07 21:25:17 | Re: RSS should contain URL to source code |