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

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

> 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 Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

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

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