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.
Well, I actually didn't say either of those things, but I appreciate the feedback. RAID 0 is an interesting suggestion, but given our constraints, it's not an option. Reliability is important, but not as important as, say, a banking system.
And as far as zero write traffic, I don't know where that came from. It's a "hitlist" based system, where complex search results are saved for the user in tables, and the write traffic can be quite high.
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
Right now, an 8-disk RAID 10 is looking like the best choice. The Dell Perc 6i has configurations that include a battery-backed cache, so performance should be quite good.
However, if reliability *really* isn't an issue, and you can accept
reinstalling the system if you lose a disc, then there's a third option:
8 discs RAID 0: Everything
I imagine the MTBF on a system like this would be < 1 year, which is out of the question, even with a backup system that can take over. A failure completely wipes the system, OS and everything, so you're guaranteed that once or twice a year, you have to rebuild your system from the ground up. I'd rather spend that time at the beach!
Craig
--
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
