Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000

From: Kenji Morishige <kenjim(at)juniper(dot)net>
To: "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, kenjim(at)juniper(dot)net
Subject: Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000
Date: 2006-08-08 22:07:45
Message-ID: 20060808220745.GC6418@juniper.net
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

The 1+0 on the WAL is better than on PGDATA? I guess I'm confused about the
write sequence of the data. I will research more, thank you!
-Kenji

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:59:09PM -0500, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >>I am considering a setup such as this:
> >> - At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
> >> - 4GB of RAM
> >> - 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
> >> - 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA
> >> - 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog
> >>Does anyone know a vendor that might be able provide such setup?
>
> Wouldn't it be preferable to put WAL on a multi-disk RAID 10 if you
> had the opportunity? This gives you the redundancy of RAID 1 but
> approaches the performance of RAID 0, especially as you add disks to
> the array. In benchmarking, I've seen consistent success with this
> approach.
>
> --
> Thomas F. O'Connell
> Sitening, LLC
>
> http://www.sitening.com/
> 3004B Poston Avenue
> Nashville, TN 37203-1314
> 615-469-5150 x802
> 615-469-5151 (fax)

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2006-08-08 22:08:29 Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000
Previous Message Thomas F. O'Connell 2006-08-08 21:59:09 Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000