Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID)

From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: "pgsql-performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID)
Date: 2003-05-03 08:15:40
Message-ID: 200305031345.40156.shridhar_daithankar@nospam.persistent.co.in
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Saturday 03 May 2003 13:27, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Friday 02 May 2003 16:10, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > More disks is almost always better. Putting WAL on a seperate (non-RAID)
> > disk is usually a very good idea.
>
> From a performance POV perhaps. The subject came up on hackers recently
> and it was pointed out that if you use RAID for reliability and redundancy
> rather than for performance, you need to keep the WAL files on the RAID
> too.

but for performance reason, that RAID can be separate from the data RAID..:-)

Shridhar

--
"Gee, Toto, I don't think we are in Kansas anymore."

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-05-03 10:04:22 Re: looking for large dataset
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-05-03 08:02:49 Re: Looking for a cheap upgrade (RAID)