Re: What's better: Raid 0 or disk for seperate pg_xlog
От | John Arbash Meinel |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What's better: Raid 0 or disk for seperate pg_xlog |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4230A653.4090708@arbash-meinel.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: What's better: Raid 0 or disk for seperate pg_xlog (Karim Nassar <Karim.Nassar@acm.org>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Karim Nassar wrote: >Thanks to all for the tips. > > ... >>In general I would recommend RAID1, because that is the safe bet. If >>your db is the bottleneck, and your data isn't all that critical, and >>you are read heavy, I would probably go with RAID1, if you are write >> >> ^^^^^ -> RAID0 >>heavy I would say 2 independent disks. >> >> > >I feel that we have enough data safety such that I want to go for speed. >Some of the queries are very large joins, and I am going for pure >throughput at this point - unless someone can find a hole in my backup >tactic. > >Of course, later we will have money to throw at more spindles. But for >now, I am trying gaze in to the future and maximize my current >capabilities. > > >Seems to me that the "best" solution would be: > >* disk 0 partition 1..n - os mounts > partition n+1 - /var/lib/postgres/data/pg_xlog > >* disk 1 partition 1 - /var/lib/postgres/data > >* Further (safe) performance gains can be had by adding more spindles as >such: > - first disk: RAID1 to disk 1 > - next 2 disks: RAID 0 across the above > > Sounds decent to me. I did make the mistake that you might want to consider a RAID0. But the performance gains might be small, and you potentially lose everything. But your update strategy seems dead on. >Do I grok it? > >Thanks again, > > John =:->
Вложения
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: