| From: | Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Anjan Dave" <adave(at)vantage(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Database Server Tuning |
| Date: | 2004-06-10 16:51:24 |
| Message-ID: | 688B58EC-BAFE-11D8-AE8E-000A9578CFCC@kcilink.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Jun 10, 2004, at 12:02 PM, Anjan Dave wrote:
> Vivek,
>
> Was there anything specific that helped you decide on a RAID-5 and not
> a RAID-10?
performance testing on restore times. My DB is more than 50% write, so
I needed to optimize for writes.
> I have my DBs on RAID10, and would soon be moving them on FC drives,
> and i am considering RAID-10.
If I had to do it over again, I'd most likely go with RAID-50, and take
the hit on restore time for the advantage on reads. I have to dig
through my records again to see the details... but then I have to do
all that for my OSCON presentation on this topic at the end of July in
Portland, OR. ;-)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2004-06-10 16:56:26 | Re: *very* inefficient choice made by the planner (regarding |
| Previous Message | Anjan Dave | 2004-06-10 16:02:46 | Re: Database Server Tuning |