From: | "philip johnson" <philip(dot)johnson(at)atempo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
Date: | 2002-11-22 14:17:26 |
Message-ID: | NDBBJLHHAKJFNNCGFBHLIEFPEFAA.philip.johnson@atempo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org wrote:
> Objet : Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no
> raid on
>
>
> Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
>> If 4 drives are an option, I suggest 2 x RAID1, one for data, and
>> one for WAL and temporary DB space (pg_temp).
>
> Ideally there should be *nothing* on the WAL drive except WAL; you
> don't ever want that disk head seeking away from the WAL. Put the
> temp files on the data disk.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the
> postmaster
which temp files ?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-11-22 15:01:52 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-22 13:52:48 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-11-22 15:01:52 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-22 13:52:48 | Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on |