Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on

From: "philip johnson" <philip(dot)johnson(at)atempo(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
Date: 2002-11-22 14:17:26
Message-ID: NDBBJLHHAKJFNNCGFBHLIEFPEFAA.philip.johnson@atempo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-performance
pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org wrote:
> Objet : Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no
> raid on
> 
> 
> Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
>> If 4 drives are an option, I suggest 2 x RAID1, one for data, and
>> one for WAL and temporary DB space (pg_temp). 
> 
> Ideally there should be *nothing* on the WAL drive except WAL; you
> don't ever want that disk head seeking away from the WAL.  Put the
> temp files on the data disk.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the
> postmaster 

which temp files ?

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2002-11-22 15:01:52
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-11-22 13:52:48
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2002-11-22 15:01:52
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-11-22 13:52:48
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group