Re: table spaces
От | Gregg Jaskiewicz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: table spaces |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJY59_hUf-QYJYtiGu_Po_uKXPgHYwZL=Yoyt4kd=aoaZ8HXTg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: table spaces (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: table spaces
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 12 March 2013 21:59, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
On 3/12/2013 2:31 PM, Gregg Jaskiewicz wrote:both those models have merits.I was basically under impression that separating WAL is a big plus. On top of that, having separate partition to hold some other data - will do too.
But it sounds - from what you said - like having all in single logical drive will work, because raid card will spread the load amongst number of drives.
Am I understanding that correctly ?
doing a single raid 10 should fairly evenly distribute the IO workload given adequate concurrency, and suitable stripe size and alignment. there are scenarios where a hand tuned spindle layout can be more efficient, but there's also the possibility of getting write bound on any one of those 3 seperate raid1's, and having other disks sitting idle.
I'm trying to get an understanding of all options.
So out of 6 disks then having 4 in Raid 1+0 configuration and other two in mirror for WAL. That's another option then for me to test.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: