Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")

From: Ben Clewett <B(dot)Clewett(at)roadrunner(dot)uk(dot)com>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")
Date: 2003-04-22 08:25:22
Message-ID: 3EA4FC72.4080800@roadrunner.uk.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ben Clewett" <B(dot)Clewett(at)roadrunner(dot)uk(dot)com>

>>Working with IDE drives on PC's, you can double the performace of a DB
>>just by putting half the tables on a disk on another IDE chain.
>
>
> You can do this using symlinks, but you do have to shut down the postmaster
> before you play with the files directly.

I was hoping this was the case. :)

From my data/base directory, I have a tree structure of numbered files
of no obvious structure. As well as some smaller directories, 'global',
'pg_xlog' and 'pg_clog'.

If I wanted to divide the postmaster read() calls evenly to files
located over several physical disks, how would you suggest distributing
the data-space? Would it be as simple as putting each child directory
in 'data/base' on a different physical disk in a round-robbin fasion
using symbolic links: Or is it more involved...

data/base/1 -> /dev/hda
data/base/2 -> /dev/hdb
data/base/3 -> /dev/hdc
data/base/4 -> /dev/hda
data/base/5 -> /dev/hdb
data/base/6 -> /dev/hdc (etc)

(I have made the assumption that the postmaster serves different
connections in parallel, otherwise this would have little effect :)

Thanks,

Ben

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-04-22 08:37:57 Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2003-04-22 07:07:01 Re: Are we losing momentum?