<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
On 1/28/2011 11:44 AM, Scott Carey wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C9683F12(dot)1E3D5%25scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div>On 1/27/11 4:11 PM, "Alan Hodgson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ahodgson(at)simkin(dot)ca">ahodgson(at)simkin(dot)ca</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE"
style="padding: 0pt 0pt 0pt 5px; margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 5px;">
<div>
<style type="text/css">
p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }
</style>
<div style="font-family: 'Ubuntu'; font-size: 11pt;
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal;">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">On January 27,
2011, Robert Schnabel <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:schnabelr(at)missouri(dot)edu">schnabelr(at)missouri(dot)edu</a>>
wrote:</p>
<p style="margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">> So my
questions are 1) am I'm crazy for doing this, 2) would
you change</p>
<p style="margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">> anything
and 3) is it acceptable to put the xlog & wal (and
perhaps tmp</p>
<p style="margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">> filespace)
on a different controller than everything else? Please
keep</p>
<p style="margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">> in mind I'm
a geneticist who happens to know a little bit about</p>
<p style="margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">>
bioinformatics and not the reverse. :-)</p>
<p style="margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">> </p>
<p style="margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">Putting the WAL
on a second controller does help, if you're write-heavy.</p>
<p style="margin: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">I tried
separating indexes and data once on one server and
didn't really notice that it helped much. Managing the
space was problematic. I would suggest putting those
together on a single RAID-10 of all the 300GB drives
(minus a spare). It will probably outperform separate
arrays most of the time, and be much easier to manage.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you go this route, I suggest two equally sized RAID 10's
on different controllers fir index + data, with software raid-0
on top of that. RAID 10 will max out a controller after 6 to 10
drives, usually. Using the OS RAID 0 to aggregate the
throughput of two controllers works great.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>WAL only has to be a little bit faster than your network in
most cases. I've never seen it be a bottleneck on large bulk
loads if it is on its own controller with 120MB/sec write
throughput. I suppose a bulk load from COPY might stress it a
bit more, but CPU ends up the bottleneck in postgres once you
have I/O hardware this capable.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Do you mean 14 drives in one box as RAID10's on one controller, then
14 drives in the other box on a second controller, then software
RAID0 each of the two RAID10's together essentially as a single 4 TB
array? Would you still recommend doing this with Windows?<br>
Bob<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>