From: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WAL+Os on a single disk |
Date: | 2010-06-24 09:14:00 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.00.1006241009510.2534@aragorn.flymine.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> We have a 12 x 600G hot swappable disk system (raid 10)
>> and 2 internal disk ( 2x 146G)
>>
>> Does it make sense to put the WAL and OS on the internal disks
>
> So for us, the WAL and OS and logging on the same data set works well.
Generally, it is recommended that you put the WAL onto a separate disc to
the data. However, in this case, I would be careful. It may be that the 12
disc array is more capable. Specifically, it is likely that the 12-disc
array has a battery backed cache, but the two internal drives (RAID 1
presumably) do not. If this is the case, then putting the WAL on the
internal drives will reduce performance, as you will only be able to
commit a transaction once per revolution of the internal discs. In
contrast, if the WAL is on a battery backed cache array, then you can
commit much more frequently.
Test it and see.
Matthew
--
I don't want the truth. I want something I can tell parliament!
-- Rt. Hon. Jim Hacker MP
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Wilcox | 2010-06-24 10:45:25 | Small Queries Really Fast, Large Queries Really Slow... |
Previous Message | Rob Wultsch | 2010-06-24 08:40:23 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |