> > raid 10 is of course not questionable. but are you sure that it will > > work faster than for example: > > 2 discs (raid 1) for xlog > > 6 discs (raid 10) for tables > > 6 discs (raid 10) for indices? > > > > This depends on your application. Do you have a lot of disc reads? > Anyhow, I would put the xlog always to a RAID 10 volume because most of > the I/O for update and inserts is going to the xlog. > > 4 discs xlog > 6 discs tables > 4 discs tables2 I have a question in regards to I/O bandwidths of various raid configuration. Primary, does the above suggested raid partitions imply that multiple (smaller) disk arrays have a potential for more I/O bandwidth than a larger raid 10 array? Regards, Richard
