Re: filesystem option tuning
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: filesystem option tuning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20195.1085843886@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: filesystem option tuning (Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar@frodo.hserus.net>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar@frodo.hserus.net> writes: > On Wednesday 19 May 2004 13:02, share-postgres@think42.com wrote: > - If you can put WAL on separate disk(s), all the better. >> >> Does that mean only the xlog, or also the clog? > You can put clog and xlog on same drive. You can, but I think you shouldn't. The entire argument for giving xlog its own drive revolves around the fact that xlog is written sequentially, and so if it has its own spindle then you have near-zero seek requirements. As soon as you give that drive any other work to do, you start losing the low-seek property. Now as Shridhar says, clog is not a very high-I/O-volume thing, so in one sense it doesn't much matter which drive you put it on. But it seems to me that clog acts much more like ordinary table files than it acts like xlog. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: