| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bjoern Metzdorf" <bm(at)turtle-entertainment(dot)de>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
| Date: | 2002-11-22 13:52:48 |
| Message-ID: | 23482.1037973168@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
> If 4 drives are an option, I suggest 2 x RAID1, one for data, and one for WAL and temporary DB space (pg_temp).
Ideally there should be *nothing* on the WAL drive except WAL; you don't
ever want that disk head seeking away from the WAL. Put the temp files
on the data disk.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | philip johnson | 2002-11-22 14:17:26 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
| Previous Message | Fouad Fezzi | 2002-11-22 08:39:56 | Re: pg_hba.conf file review |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | philip johnson | 2002-11-22 14:17:26 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
| Previous Message | Mario Weilguni | 2002-11-22 07:31:11 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |