| From: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim C(dot) Nasby <jimn(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuums on large busy databases |
| Date: | 2006-09-19 00:21:16 |
| Message-ID: | cone.1158625276.426992.91426.5001@35st-server.simplicato.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jim C. Nasby writes:
> BTW, on some good raid controllers (with battery backup and
> write-caching), putting pg_xlog on a seperate partition doesn't really
> help, so you might want to try combining everything.
Planning to put a busy database on second raid or perhaps some index files.
So far the second raid is highly under utilized.
> Even if you stay with 2 partitions, I'd cut pg_xlog back to just a
> simple mirror.
I am considering to put the pg_xlog back to the main raid. Primarily because
we have two hot spares.. on top of RAID 10.. so it is safer.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-09-19 01:10:13 | Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected) |
| Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2006-09-18 23:58:13 | Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected) |