On 11/28/2012 11:44 AM, Niels Kristian Schjødt wrote:
Thanks a lot - on the server I already have one additional SSD 250gb disk, that I don't use for anything at the moment.
Goooood. An SSD would actually be better for your data, as it follows more random access patterns, and xlogs are more sequential. But it's better than nothing. And yes, you'd be better off with a RAID-1 of two of these SSDs, because the xlogs are critical to database health. You have your archived copy due to the rsync, which helps. But if you had a crash, there could potentially be a need to replay unarchived transaction logs, and you'd end up with some data loss.
BTW. as you might have seen from the .conf I have a second slave server with the exact same setup, which currently runs as a hot streaming replication slave. I might ask a stupid question here, but this does not affect the performance of the master does it?
Only if you're using synchronous replication. From what I saw in the config, that isn't the case. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-444-8534 sthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ______________________________________________ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
