On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 22:13 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Ben Chobot wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Steve Crawford wrote: > > > > > I'm weighing options for a new server. In addition to PostgreSQL, this machine will handle some modest Samba and Rsync load. > > > > > > I will have enough RAM so the virtually all disk-read activity will be cached. The average PostgreSQL read activity will be modest - a mix of single-record and fairly large (reporting) result-sets. Writes will be modest as well but will come in brief (1-5 second) bursts of individual inserts. The rate of insert requests will hit 100-200/second for those brief bursts. > > > > > > So... > > > > > > Am I likely to be better off putting $$$ toward battery-backup on the RAID or toward adding a second RAID-set and splitting off the WAL traffic? Or something else? > > > > A BBU is, what, $100 or so? Adding one seems a no-brainer to me. > > Dedicated WAL spindles are nice and all, but they're still spinning > > media. Raid card cache is waaaay faster, and while it's best at bursty > > writes, it sounds like bursty writes are precisely what you have. > > Totally agree! BBU first, more spindles second. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + It's impossible for everything to be true. + > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
