| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kenji Morishige <kenjim(at)juniper(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000 |
| Date: | 2006-08-08 23:24:07 |
| Message-ID: | 44D91D17.30106@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>
> In which case, which is theoretically better (since I don't have a
> convenient test bed at the moment) for WAL in a write-heavy environment?
> More disks in a RAID 10 (which should theoretically improve write
> throughput in general, to a point) or a 2-disk RAID 1? Does it become a
> price/performance question, or is there virtually no benefit to throwing
> more disks at RAID 10 for WAL if you turn off journaling on the filesystem?
Over 4 drives, I would gather that RAID 10 wouldn't gain you anything.
Possibly over 6 or 8 however, it may be faster because you are writing
smaller chunks of data, even if two copies of each.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas F. O'Connell | 2006-08-09 00:16:45 | Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000 |
| Previous Message | Thomas F. O'Connell | 2006-08-08 22:53:18 | Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000 |