From: | gael(at)pilotsystems(dot)net ( Gaël Le Mignot) |
---|---|
To: | Ognjen Blagojevic <ognjen(at)etf(dot)bg(dot)ac(dot)yu> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SATA drives performance |
Date: | 2009-12-24 15:44:14 |
Message-ID: | plop87637wwf5d.fsf@aoskar.kilobug.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hello,
Instead of using 3 disks in RAID-0 and one without RAID for archive, I
would rather invest into one extra disk and have either a RAID 1+0
setup or use two disks in RAID-1 for the WAL and two disks in RAID-1
for the main database (I'm not sure which perform better between those
two solutions).
RAID-1 will give you about twice as fast reads as no RAID (and RAID
1+0 will give you twice as fast as RAID 0), with no significant
penalty for writing, and it'll save a lot of manpower in case on disk
dies.
If you can afford hot-swappable disks, you can even replace a failed
disk live, in a few minutes, with no failure at software level.
Everything can be remotely setup, including adding/removing a disk
from RAID array, if you use Linux software RAID (mdadm), except of
course the physical swap of the disk, but that can be done by a
non-technician.
This solution costs only one extra disk (which is quite cheap
nowadays) and will deliver enhanced performances and save a lot of
manpower and downtime in case of disk breaking.
Regards,
--
Gaël Le Mignot - gael(at)pilotsystems(dot)net
Pilot Systems - 9, rue Desargues - 75011 Paris
Tel : +33 1 44 53 05 55 - www.pilotsystems.net
Gérez vos contacts et vos newsletters : www.cockpit-mailing.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-24 15:46:25 | Re: Optimizer use of index slows down query by factor |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-12-24 14:57:31 | Re: SATA drives performance |