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
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? |