On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It's small enough that there's some other things going on at the same small server with 4 disk bays ;-) My thinking was that write-back cache might mitigate the poor write performance enough to not be noticed. This db doesn't generally get big batch updates anyway, it's mostly a constant stream of small updates coming in and I have a hard time imagining 256MB of cache filling up very often. (I have at least a fuzzy understanding of how WAL segments affect the write load.) We run our internal dev server on RAID-6 and it works well enough. Again, like your usage case, it doesn't get beat up too hard, so RAID-6 works fine. I prefer RAID-6 because it doesn't degrade as bad as RAID-5 when a single drive fails, and of course it's still fully redundant with a single drive failure. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
