| From: | Lutz Steinborn <l(dot)steinborn(at)4c-ag(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware HD choice... |
| Date: | 2008-10-24 07:26:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20081024092645.6e82eb2f.l.steinborn@4c-ag.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:41:49 -0600
"Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> wrote:
> > If you are doing batch inserts of data, and want to have reporting queries
> > concurrently running, make sure you have the pg_xlogs on a different disk
> > than the data/indexes. 2 drives RAID 1 for OS + xlogs works great (and
>
> From the OPs original post I'd guess that one big RAID 10 would serve
> him best, but yeah, you need to test to really see.
Has anybody a performance comparison for postgresql between the various RAID
levels ?
many thanks in advance
regards
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lionel | 2008-10-24 10:08:53 | Re: Hardware HD choice... |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-10-24 05:41:49 | Re: Hardware HD choice... |