Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000
От | Thomas F. O'Connell |
---|---|
Тема | Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 82C06632-148B-4489-90EB-BBB8A6BD1159@sitening.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000 ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000
Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000 |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Thomas F. O'Connell wrote: >> On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>>> I am considering a setup such as this: >>>> - At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each) >>>> - 4GB of RAM >>>> - 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk >>>> - 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA >>>> - 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog >>>> Does anyone know a vendor that might be able provide such setup? >> Wouldn't it be preferable to put WAL on a multi-disk RAID 10 if >> you had the opportunity? This gives you the redundancy of RAID 1 >> but approaches the performance of RAID 0, especially as you add >> disks to the array. In benchmarking, I've seen consistent success >> with this approach. > > WALL is written in order so RAID 1 is usually fine. We also don't > need journaling for WAL so the speed is even faster. In which case, which is theoretically better (since I don't have a convenient test bed at the moment) for WAL in a write-heavy environment? More disks in a RAID 10 (which should theoretically improve write throughput in general, to a point) or a 2-disk RAID 1? Does it become a price/performance question, or is there virtually no benefit to throwing more disks at RAID 10 for WAL if you turn off journaling on the filesystem? -- Thomas F. O'Connell Sitening, LLC http://www.sitening.com/ 3004B Poston Avenue Nashville, TN 37203-1314 615-469-5150 x802 615-469-5151 (fax)
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: