| From: | William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What to do with 6 disks? |
| Date: | 2005-04-20 03:06:54 |
| Message-ID: | d44h0e$2prl$1@news.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
My experience:
1xRAID10 for postgres
1xRAID1 for OS + WAL
Jeff Frost wrote:
> Now that we've hashed out which drives are quicker and more money equals
> faster...
>
> Let's say you had a server with 6 separate 15k RPM SCSI disks, what raid
> option would you use for a standalone postgres server?
>
> a) 3xRAID1 - 1 for data, 1 for xlog, 1 for os?
> b) 1xRAID1 for OS/xlog, 1xRAID5 for data
> c) 1xRAID10 for OS/xlong/data
> d) 1xRAID1 for OS, 1xRAID10 for data
> e) .....
>
> I was initially leaning towards b, but after talking to Josh a bit, I
> suspect that with only 4 disks the raid5 might be a performance
> detriment vs 3 raid 1s or some sort of split raid10 setup.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-04-20 03:07:33 | Re: What to do with 6 disks? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-20 03:05:54 | Re: Slow copy with little CPU/disk usage |