Re: Configuration Recommendations

[Jan Nielsen <jan.sture.nielsen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Oopps; looping in the list...

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Jan Nielsen <jan.sture.nielsen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Jan Nielsen
<jan.sture.nielsen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We are considering the following drive allocations:
>
>  * 4 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 10 on SAN for PG data
>  * 4 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 10 on SAN  for PG indexes
>  * 2 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 1 on SAN  for PG xlog
>  * 1 x 15k SAS drive, XFS, on local storage for OS

Is it established practice in the Postgres world to separate indexes
from tables?  I would assume that the reasoning of Richard Foote -
albeit for Oracle databases - is also true for Postgres:

http://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/separate-indexes-from-tables-some-thoughts-part-i-everything-in-its-right-place/
http://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/separate-indexes-from-tables-some-thoughts-part-ii-there-there/
http://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/indexes-in-their-own-tablespace-availabilty-advantages-is-there-anybody-out-there/

Very nice articles!

 

Conversely if you lump both on a single volume you have more
flexibility with regard to usage - unless of course you can
dynamically resize volumes.

Agreed.

 

To me it also seems like a good idea to mirror local disk with OS and
database software because if that fails you'll get downtime as well.
As of now you have a single point of failure there.

Agreed as well. 

These are good improvements - thanks for the review and references, Robert.

Cheers,

Jan

 

Kind regards

robert

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance