On 4/1/09 10:01 AM, "Matthew Wakeling" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Stef Telford wrote: >> Good UPS, a warm PITR standby, offsite backups and regular checks is >> "good enough" for me, and really, that's what it all comes down to. >> Mitigating risk and factors into an 'acceptable' amount for each person. >> However, if you see over a 2x improvement from turning write-cache 'on' >> and have everything else in place, well, that seems like a 'no-brainer' >> to me, at least ;) > > In that case, buying a battery-backed-up cache in the RAID controller > would be even more of a no-brainer. > > Matthew > Why? Honestly, SATA write cache is safer than a battery backed raid card. The raid card is one more point of failure, and SATA write caches with a modern file system is safe. > -- > If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress? > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
