Re: High load,

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Kohl <michael(dot)kohl(at)tupalo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: High load,
Date: 2011-01-27 18:19:35
Message-ID: 201101271919.35382.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thursday, January 27, 2011 07:13:17 PM Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > * Michael Kohl (michael(dot)kohl(at)tupalo(dot)com) wrote:
> >> HDD: 2x 120 GB OCZ Vertex 2 SSD; RAID 1
> >
> > I'm amazed no one else has mentioned this yet, but you should look into
> > splitting your data and your WALs. Obviously, having another set of
> > SSDs to put your WALs on would be ideal.
>
> Actually spinning media would be a better choice. A pair of fast
> 15krpm drives in a mirror will almost always outrun an SSD for
> sequential write speed. Even meh-grade 7200RPM SATA drives will win.
Unless he is bulk loading or running with synchronous_commit=off sequential
speed wont be the limit for WAL. The number of syncs will be the limit.

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message DM 2011-01-27 19:26:43 Re: pgbench - tps for Postgresql-9.0.2 is more than tps for Postgresql-8.4.1
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2011-01-27 18:14:32 Re: High load,