From: | Matthew <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How to allocate 8 disks |
Date: | 2008-03-03 12:11:55 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0803031206340.20402@aragorn.flymine.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Craig James wrote:
> Right, I do understand that, but reliability is not a top priority in this
> system. The database will be replicated, and can be reproduced from the raw
> data.
So what you're saying is:
1. Reliability is not important.
2. There's zero write traffic once the database is set up.
If this is true, then RAID-0 is the way to go. I think Greg's options are
good. Either:
2 discs RAID 1: OS
6 discs RAID 0: database + WAL
which is what we're using here (except with more discs), or:
8 discs RAID 10: everything
However, if reliability *really* isn't an issue, and you can accept
reinstalling the system if you lose a disc, then there's a third option:
8 discs RAID 0: Everything
Matthew
--
Heat is work, and work's a curse. All the heat in the universe, it's
going to cool down, because it can't increase, then there'll be no
more work, and there'll be perfect peace. -- Michael Flanders
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Douglas J Hunley | 2008-03-03 14:25:02 | which is more important? freq of checkpoints or the duration of them? |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2008-03-03 05:16:44 | Re: How to choose a disc array for Postgresql? |