From: | Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: coping with failing disks |
Date: | 2010-09-02 14:50:01 |
Message-ID: | 4C7FB999.2060102@iathh.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Am 02.09.2010 16:32, schrieb Vick Khera:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Joachim Worringen
> <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de> wrote:
>> Would the consistency of the database be affected if all indices are
>> suddenly gone?
>
> The unique constraint is implemented as a unique index. So I'd say
> "yeah, you could break your consistency".
True. But we could use a separate index space only for our own indices -
what if storage for this goes away?
> Why not purchase a robust RAM/SSD disk system designed for DB use
> rather than hacking one up on the cheap?
15k SAS drives and Intel SLC SSDs are not really on the cheap side
(especially in quantity to fill up a storage array), but we still want
to get the most of them. Things like RAMsan (Texas Memory Systems) are
currently considered overkill here. Anything else (no, not Fusion I/O)?
It's a matter of tradeoff between performance and availability.
thanks, Joachim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-09-02 15:25:42 | Re: Strange/random overload of the server |
Previous Message | Vick Khera | 2010-09-02 14:32:18 | Re: coping with failing disks |