On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:50:33AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > The second step is to have lots of disks; 5 drives is a minimum for really > good performance. 3-drive RAID5, in particular, is a poor performer for > PostgreSQL, often resulting in I/O that is 40% or less as efficient as a > single disk due to extremely slow random seeks and little parallelization. > > Once you have 6 drives or more, opinions are divided on whether RAID 10 or > RAID 5 is better. I think it partly depends on your access pattern.
What about benefits from putting WAL and pg_temp on seperate drives? Specifically, we have a box with 8 drives, 2 in a mirror with the OS and WAL and pg_temp; the rest in a raid10 with the database on it. Do you think it would have been better to make one big raid10? What if it was raid5? And what if it was only 6 drives total? -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html