On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 10:37 -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > The problem is that if you lose WAL or the data, you've lost everything. > So you might as well use raid0 for the data if you're using it for WAL. > Or switch WAL to raid1. Actually, a really good controller *might* be > able to do a good job of raid5 for WAL. Or just use raid10. If the WAL is lost, can you lose more than the data since the last checkpoint? -- Ian Westmacott <ianw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intellivid Corp.
