Re: Article about PostgreSQL and RAID in Brazil

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: ricardo(at)sqlmagazine(dot)com(dot)br, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, br(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Article about PostgreSQL and RAID in Brazil
Date: 2004-09-16 21:07:37
Message-ID: 200409161407.37669.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Jim,

> What about benefits from putting WAL and pg_temp on seperate drives?
> Specifically, we have a box with 8 drives, 2 in a mirror with the OS and
> WAL and pg_temp; the rest in a raid10 with the database on it. Do you
> think it would have been better to make one big raid10? What if it was
> raid5? And what if it was only 6 drives total?

OSDL's finding was that even with a large RAID array, it still benefits you to
have WAL on a seperate disk resource ... substantially, like 10% total
performance. However, your setup doesn't get the full possible benefit,
since WAL is sharing the array with other resources.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Qing Zhao 2004-09-16 21:20:29 indexes make other queries slow!
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2004-09-16 21:05:28 Re: Question about PG on OSX