On Monday 06 June 2005 15:08, John A Meinel wrote: > Be very careful in this situation. If any disks in a RAID0 fails, the > entire raid is lost. You *really* want a RAID10. It takes more drives, > but then if anything dies you don't lose everything.
Advertising
We have redundancy at the machine level using DRBD, so this is not a concern. > I don't know if you can do it, but it would be nice to see this be 1 > RAID1 for OS, 1 RAID10 for pg_xlog, and another RAID10 for data. That is > the recommended performance layout. It takes quite a few drives (minimum > of 10). But it means your data is safe, and your performance should be > very good. The current servers have 4 drive bays, and we can't even afford to fill them all right now...we just invested what amounts to "quite a lot" on our budget for these 2 servers, so replacing them is not an option at all right now. I think the most cost-effective road forward is to add 2 more drives to each of the existing servers (which currently have 2 each). Cheers, -- Casey Allen Shobe | http://casey.shobe.info [EMAIL PROTECTED] | cell 425-443-4653 AIM & Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy | ICQ: 1494523 SeattleServer.com, Inc. | http://www.seattleserver.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
