| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WAL+Os on a single disk |
| Date: | 2010-06-23 19:34:33 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTim3wDAdL7aICFR-G_omPWjf1ROCx7gvkDldgLS8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have a situation where we are limited by the chassis on the box (and cost).
>
> We have a 12 x 600G hot swappable disk system (raid 10)
> and 2 internal disk ( 2x 146G)
>
> We would like to maximize storage on the large disks .
>
> Does it make sense to put the WAL and OS on the internal disks and use
> the 12 large disks only for data or should we put the WAL along with
> data and leave the OS on the internal disks.
>
> On our current systems..everything is on a single RAID 10 volume (and
> performance is good)
>
> We are just considering options now that we have the 2 extra disks to spare.
I have 16 disks in a server, 2 hot spares, 2 for OS and WAL and 12 for
RAID-10. The RAID-10 array hits 100% utilization long before the 2 in
a RAID-1 for OS and WAL do. And we log all modifying SQL statements
onto the same disk set. So for us, the WAL and OS and logging on the
same data set works well.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-23 19:37:20 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
| Previous Message | Anj Adu | 2010-06-23 19:01:32 | WAL+Os on a single disk |