Re: Raid 10 chunksize

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Raid 10 chunksize
Date: 2009-04-01 17:04:12
Message-ID: dcc563d10904011004u11b7b4a2mb637fa841eba49c2@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Stef Telford wrote:
>>
>>   Good UPS, a warm PITR standby, offsite backups and regular checks is
>> "good enough" for me, and really, that's what it all comes down to.
>> Mitigating risk and factors into an 'acceptable' amount for each person.
>> However, if you see over a 2x improvement from turning write-cache 'on'
>> and have everything else in place, well, that seems like a 'no-brainer'
>> to me, at least ;)
>
> In that case, buying a battery-backed-up cache in the RAID controller would
> be even more of a no-brainer.

This is especially true in that you can reduce downtime. A lot of
times downtime costs as much as anything else.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew Wakeling 2009-04-01 17:10:16 Re: Very specialised query
Previous Message Matthew Wakeling 2009-04-01 17:01:18 Re: Raid 10 chunksize