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

Re: RAID stripe size question

From: Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com>
Subject: Re: RAID stripe size question
Date: 2006-07-17 09:47:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Hi, Mikael,

Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> An 0+1 array of 4 disks *could* be enough, but I'm still unsure how WAL
> activity correlates to "normal data" activity (is it 1:1, 1:2, 1:4,
> ...?) 

I think the main difference is that the WAL activity is mostly linear,
where the normal data activity is rather random access. Thus, a mirror
of few disks (or, with good controller hardware, raid6 on 4 disks or so)
for WAL should be enough to cope with a large set of data and index
disks, who have a lot more time spent in seeking.

Btw, it may make sense to spread different tables or tables and indices
onto different Raid-Sets, as you seem to have enough spindles.

And look into the commit_delay/commit_siblings settings, they allow you
to deal latency for throughput (means a little more latency per
transaction, but much more transactions per second throughput for the
whole system.)


Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf.     | Software Development GIS

Fight against software patents in EU!

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Mikael CarneholmDate: 2006-07-17 11:33:55
Subject: Re: RAID stripe size question
Previous:From: Mikael CarneholmDate: 2006-07-17 08:00:39
Subject: Re: RAID stripe size question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group