Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Faster drives for WAL than for data?

From: Leigh Dyer <leigh(at)eclinic(dot)com(dot)au>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Faster drives for WAL than for data?
Date: 2005-06-28 01:24:48
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Hi all,

My company currently runs a number of both web-based and more 
transactional projects on a PostgreSQL 7.3 server, and we're looking to 
upgrade to a new machine running 8.0 to boost performance and handle 
data growth in to the future.

Right now I'm looking at a Sun Fire V40z server in a fairly modest 
configuration: 2 Opteron 848 (2.2ghz) CPUs, and 4GB of RAM. The V40z has 
6 drive bays, and from earlier posts and the info at it sounds like the best 
configuration would be:

* 2 drives in RAID 1 for OS and WAL
* 4 drives in RAID 1+0 for data

However, using 73gb 15krpm drives, I'll be limiting myself to about 
140GB of data storage, and I'm not sure if this will be enough to cover 
the life of the server. If I stick with the faster drives for the WAL, 
how significant a performance impact will there be if I use larger 
10krpm drives for the data?

Also, if anyone could recommend a SCSI RAID card for this configuration, 
or if anyone has any other suggestions, it'd be greatly appreciated.


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2005-06-28 01:34:19
Subject: Re: Performance analysis of plpgsql code
Previous:From: Michael GlaesemannDate: 2005-06-28 01:15:50
Subject: Re: Performance analysis of plpgsql code

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group