| From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Large Databases redux |
| Date: | 2012-03-21 21:58:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4F6A4F13.3040206@hogranch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 03/21/12 2:18 PM, Jason Herr wrote:
> I have my own theories based on what I've read and my puttering. I
> think I can get away with a disk for the OS, disk for the WAL, disk
> for the large table (tablespaces) and a disk for the rest. And when I
> say disk I mean storage device. I'm thinking RAID1 15k disks for each
> set but the databases and then raid 10 or VERY large disks.
I think you're better off just making one big raid10 out of all the
disks and putting everything on it, maybe in different file systems to
seperate out file fragmentation. this way the IO workload is evenly
distributed across all the disks.
--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2012-03-21 22:20:50 | Re: Large Databases redux |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-03-21 21:54:26 | Re: pg_upgrade + streaming replication ? |