BBU Cache vs. spindles

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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

Browse pgsql-www by date

  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