On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 16:15, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:02:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:40, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:47:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhuo wrote: > > > > Xlog will be the only believable data if your system crashed. So it is a dangerous practice to put xlog stuff in RAID0. > > > > > > No more or less so than putting your main database on RAID0. If any > > > drive fails, you lose everything. > > > > Sounds like a good place to have replication. > > If you used syncronous replication, maybe. Otherwise failure of any > drive means you just lost data. And remember that the more drives you > have in your array the more likely you'll have a failure in a given > time period. > > Basically, if you can afford to setup replication on 2 machines with > RAID0 you can afford to setup RAID10 on one machine, which will usually > be a better bet. Yeah, I was thinking pgpool here. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
