On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:35, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > Actually, the BIGGEST win comes when you've got battery backed cache on
> > your RAID controller. In fact, I'd spend money on a separate RAID
> > controller for xlog with its own cache hitting a simple mirror set
> > before I'd spring for more drives on pg_xlog. The battery backed cache
> > on the pg_xlog likely wouldn't need to be big, just there and set to
> > write-back.
> >
> > Then put all the rest of your cash into disks on a big RAID 10 config,
> > and as big of a battery backed cache as you can afford for it and memory
> > for the machine.
>
> Actually, my (limited) testing has show than on a good battery-backed
> controller, there's no penalty to leaving pg_xlog in with the rest of
> PGDATA. This means that the OP could pile all 8 drives into a RAID10,
> which would almost certainly do better than 6+2.
I've seen a few posts that said that before. I wonder if there's a
point where the single RAID array / controller would get saturated and a
second one would help. I think most of the testing I've seen so far has
been multiple RAID arrays under the same controller, hasn't it?
> Note that some controllers (such as 3ware) need to periodically test the
> life of the BBU, and they disable write caching when they do so, which
> would tank performance.
ugh, that's a scary thing. Can you at least schedule it?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
