On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:58:43PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote: > On 03/21/12 2:18 PM, Jason Herr wrote: > >I have my own theories based on what I've read and my puttering. > >I think I can get away with a disk for the OS, disk for the WAL, > >disk for the large table (tablespaces) and a disk for the rest. > >And when I say disk I mean storage device. I'm thinking RAID1 15k > >disks for each set but the databases and then raid 10 or VERY > >large disks. > > I think you're better off just making one big raid10 out of all the > disks and putting everything on it, maybe in different file systems > to seperate out file fragmentation. this way the IO workload is > evenly distributed across all the disks. That, and a good RAID controller with BBU cache will go a long way to relieving the pain of fsync. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does > not attach much importance to his own thoughts. -- Arthur Schopenhauer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
