On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 19:08 -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 11:00:38AM -0500, Ian Westmacott wrote: > > The WAL is a 2-spindle (SATA) RAID0 with its own controller (ext3). > > The tables are on a 10-spindle (SCSI) RAID50 with dual U320 > > controllers (XFS). This is overkill for writing and querying the data, > > but we need to constantly ANALYZE and VACUUM in the > > background without interrupting the inserts (the app is 24x7). The > > databases are 4TB, so these operations can be lengthy. > > How come you're using RAID50 instead of just RAID0? Or was WAL being on > RAID0 a typo? We use RAID50 instead of RAID0 for the tables for some fault-tolerance. We use RAID0 for the WAL for performance. I'm missing the implication of the question... -- Ian Westmacott <ianw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intellivid Corp.
