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

Re: best arrangement of 3 disks for (insert) performance

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-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. :)

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Cott LangDate: 2003-09-14 05:40:20
Subject: Re: software vs hw hard on linux
Previous:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2003-09-12 22:11:15
Subject: Re: best arrangement of 3 disks for (insert) performance

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Dennis BjorklundDate: 2003-09-14 05:12:31
Subject: Re: MD5() function not available ??
Previous:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2003-09-14 01:27:59
Subject: Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: State of Beta 2)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group