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

Re: RAID Configuration Sugestion

From: Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Nunes Melo <al_nunes(at)atua(dot)com(dot)br>,PostgreSQL - Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RAID Configuration Sugestion
Date: 2005-08-30 14:45:15
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
At 08:37 AM 8/30/2005, Alvaro Nunes Melo wrote:
>We are about to install a new PostgreSQL server, and despite of 
>being a very humble configuration compared to the ones we see in the 
>list, it's the biggest one we've got till now.
>The server is a Dual Xeon 3.0 with 2 GB RAM and two SCSI disks. Our 
>main doubt is what is the best configuration for the disks. We are 
>thinking about use them in a RAID-0 array. Is this the best option? 
>What do you suggest on partitioning? Separate partitions for the OS, 
>data and pg_xlog?

This is _very_ modest HW.  Unless your DB and/or DB load is similarly 
modest, you are not going to be happy with the performance of your DBMS.

At a minimum, for safety reasons you want 4 HDs: 2 for a RAID 1 set 
for the DB, and 2 for a RAID 1 set for the OS + pg_xlog.
2 extra HDs, even SCSI HDs, is cheap.  Especially when compared to 
the cost of corrupted or lost data.

HD's and RAM are cheap enough that you should be able to upgrade in 
more ways, but do at least that "upgrade"!

Beyond that, the best ways to spend you limited $ are highly 
dependent on your exact DB and its usage pattern.

Ron Peacetree

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Vivek KheraDate: 2005-08-30 14:53:48
Subject: Re: Observation about db response time
Previous:From: Jeff TroutDate: 2005-08-30 14:04:44
Subject: Re: OSX & Performance

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