Hi,
Le vendredi 29 février 2008 à 23:56 -0500, Greg Smith a écrit :
> Wording is intentional--if you don't have a battery for it, the cache has
> to be turned off (or set to write-through so it's only being used on
> reads) in order for the database to be reliable. If you can't finish
> writes
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:27 AM, Franck Routier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le vendredi 29 février 2008 à 23:56 -0500, Greg Smith a écrit :
> > Wording is intentional--if you don't have a battery for it, the cache has
> > to be turned off (or set to write-through so it's only being used
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:27 AM, Franck Routier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, am I just wrong, or the file system might also heavily rely on
>> cache, especially as I use XFS ?
>>
>> So anyway Postgresql has no way to know if the data is really on
We're upgrading to a medium-sized server, a Dell PowerEdge 2950, dual-quad CPU's and
8 GB memory. This box can hold at most 8 disks (10K SCSI 2.5" 146 GB drives)
and has Dell's Perc 6/i RAID controller.
I'm thinking of this:
6 disks RAID 1+0 Postgres data
1 disk WAL
1 disk Linux
I'v
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 13:08 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> I'd like to have some feedback about the new version, in term of bugs
> encountered and performance limitations (is pgloader up to what you would
> expect a multi-threaded loader to be at?)
Maybe post to general as well if you don't g
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're upgrading to a medium-sized server, a Dell PowerEdge 2950, dual-quad
> CPU's and 8 GB memory. This box can hold at most 8 disks (10K SCSI 2.5" 146
> GB drives) and has Dell's Perc 6/i RAID controller.
>
> I'm thinki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:06:54 -0800
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're upgrading to a medium-sized server, a Dell PowerEdge 2950,
> dual-quad CPU's and 8 GB memory. This box can hold at most 8 disks
> (10K SCSI 2.5" 146 GB drives) and has
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:06:54 -0800
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We're upgrading to a medium-sized server, a Dell PowerEdge 2950,
dual-quad CPU's and 8 GB memory. This box can hold at most 8 disks
(10K SCSI 2.5" 146 GB drives) and has Dell's Perc 6/i RAID contro
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:06:54 -0800
> > Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> We're upgrading to a medium-sized server, a Dell PowerEdge 2950,
> >> dual-quad CPU's and 8 GB memory. Thi
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Franck Routier wrote:
Well, am I just wrong, or the file system might also heavily rely on
cache, especially as I use XFS ? So anyway Postgresql has no way to know
if the data is really on the disk, and in case of a brutal outage, the
system may definitely lose data, wether
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Craig James wrote:
So my question still stands: From a strictly performance point of view, would
it be better to separate the OS and the WAL onto two disks?
You're not getting a more useful answer here because you haven't mentioned
yet a) what the disk controller is or b)
11 matches
Mail list logo
