| From: | Cott Lang <cott(at)internetstaff(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: best arrangement of 3 disks for (insert) performance |
| Date: | 2003-09-14 04:44:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1063514688.27300.11.camel@blackbox |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
> Having WAL on a separate drive from the database would be something of
> a win. I'd buy that 1 disk for OS+WAL and then RAID [something]
> across the other two drives for the database would be pretty helpful.
Just my .02,
I did a lot of testing before I deployed our ~50GB postgresql databases
with various combinations of 6 15k SCSI drives. I did custom benchmarks
to simulate our applications, I downloaded several benchmarks, etc.
It might be a fluke, but I never got better performance with WALs on a
different disk than I did with all 6 disks in a 0+1 configuration.
Obviously that's not an option with 3 disks. =)
I ended up going with that for easier space maintenance.
Obviously YMMV, benchmark for your own situation. :)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2003-09-14 05:12:31 | Re: MD5() function not available ?? |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-09-14 01:27:59 | Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: State of Beta 2) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Cott Lang | 2003-09-14 05:40:20 | Re: software vs hw hard on linux |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-09-12 22:11:15 | Re: best arrangement of 3 disks for (insert) performance |