Matthew wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Craig James wrote:
Right, I do understand that, but reliability is not a top priority in
this system. The database will be replicated, and can be reproduced
from the raw data.
So what you're saying is:
1. Reliability is not important.
2. There's zero write traffic once the database is set up.
If this is true, then RAID-0 is the way to go. I think Greg's options
are good. Either:
2 discs RAID 1: OS
6 discs RAID 0: database + WAL
which is what we're using here (except with more discs), or:
8 discs RAID 10: everything
Has anybody been able to prove to themselves that RAID 0 vs RAID 1+0 is
faster for these sorts of loads? My understanding is that RAID 1+0 *can*
reduce latency for reads, but that it relies on random access, whereas
RAID 0 performs best for sequential scans? Does PostgreSQL ever do
enough random access to make RAID 1+0 shine?
Curious.
Thanks,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your Subscription:
http://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr?domain=postgresql.org&extra=pgsql-performance
