A couple of thoughts occur to me:
1. For reads, RAID 1 should also be good: it will allow a read to occur
from whichever disk can provide the data fastest.
2. Also, for reads, the more RAM you have, the better (for caching). I'd
suspect that another 8GB of RAM is a better expenditure than a 2nd drive
in many cases.
3. RAID 0 is twice as unreliable as no raid. I'd recommend using RAID 1
intead. If you use the Linux software mdraid, remote admin is easy.
4. If you can tolerate the risk of the most recent transactions being
lost, look at asynchronous commit. Likewise, you *might* consider
operating with a write cache enabled. Otherwise, the time for
fdatasync() is what's critical.
5. For a 2-disk setup, I think that main DB on one, with WAL on the
other will beat having everything on a single RAID0.
6. The WAL is relatively small: you might consider a (cheap) solid-state
disk for it.
7. If you have 3 equal disks, try doing some experiments. My inclination
would be to set them all up with ext4, then have the first disk set up
as a split between OS and WAL; the 2nd disk set up for
/var/lib/postgresql, and the 3rd disk as a backup for everything (and a
spare OS with SSH access).
8. Lastly, if you need remote administration, and can justify another
£100 or so, the HP "iLO" (integrated lights out) cards are rather
useful: these effectively give you VNC without OS support, even for the
BIOS.
Best wishes,
Richard
Ognjen Blagojevic wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to figure out which HW configuration with 3 SATA drives is
the best in terms of reliability and performance for Postgres database.
I'm thinking to connect two drives in RAID 0, and to keep the database
(and WAL) on these disks - to improve the write performance of the SATA
drives.
The third drive will be used to reduce the cost of the RAID 0 failure
without reducing the performance. Say, I could configure Postgres to use
the third drive as backup for WAL files, with archive_timeout set to 15
minutes. Daily backups will be created on different server. Loss of last
15 minute updates is something the customer can afford. Also, one day
restore time is case of failure is also affordable (to reinstall the OS,
Postgres, restore backup, and load WALs).
The server will be remotely administered, that is why I'm not going for
RAID 1, 1+0 or some other solution for which, I beleive, the local
administion is crucial.
Server must be low budget, that is why I'm avoiding SAS drives. We will
use CentOS Linux and Postgres 8.4. The database will have 90% of read
actions, and 10% of writes.
I would like to hear your opinion, is this reasonable or I should
reconsider RAID 1?
Regards,
Ognjen
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
