| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "postgresql performance list" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: best use of an EMC SAN |
| Date: | 2007-07-11 14:05:37 |
| Message-ID: | 877ip7avda.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
> Assuming we have 24 73G drives is it better to make one big metalun and carve
> it up and let the SAN manage the where everything is, or is it better to
> specify which spindles are where.
This is quite a controversial question with proponents of both strategies.
I would suggest having one RAID-1 array for the WAL and throw the rest of the
drives at a single big array for the data files. That wastes space since the
WAL isn't big but the benefit is big.
If you have a battery backed cache you might not need even that. Just throwing
them all into a big raid might work just as well.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2007-07-11 14:05:57 | Re: Query Analyser |
| Previous Message | Dan Gorman | 2007-07-11 13:18:10 | Re: best use of an EMC SAN |