> > raid 10 is of course not questionable. but are you sure that it will
> > work faster than for example:
> > 2 discs (raid 1) for xlog
> > 6 discs (raid 10) for tables
> > 6 discs (raid 10) for indices?
> >
>
> This depends on your application. Do you have a lot of disc reads?
> Anyhow, I would put the xlog always to a RAID 10 volume because most of
> the I/O for update and inserts is going to the xlog.
>
> 4 discs xlog
> 6 discs tables
> 4 discs tables2
I have a question in regards to I/O bandwidths of various raid configuration.
Primary, does the
above suggested raid partitions imply that multiple (smaller) disk arrays have
a potential for
more I/O bandwidth than a larger raid 10 array?
Regards,
Richard
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
