3x200GB suggests you want to use RAID5?
Perhaps you should just pick 2x200GB and set them to RAID1. With roughly
200GB of storage, that should still easily house your potentially
10GB-database with ample of room to allow the SSD's to balance the
writes. But you save the investment and its
Note that with linux (and a few other OSes) you can use RAID-1E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#RAID_1E
with an odd number of drives.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Arjen van der Meijden
acmmail...@tweakers.net wrote:
3x200GB suggests you want to use RAID5?
Perhaps you
On 2 May 2013 23:19, mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz wrote:
On 2 May 2013 01:49, Mark Kirkwood mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz wrote:
I think we need a problem statement before we attempt a solution,
which is what Tom is alluding to.
Actually no - I think Tom (quite correctly) was saying that
On 05/03/2013 01:11, Mike McCann wrote:
Hello,
Hello,
We are in the fortunate situation of having more money than time to
help solve our PostgreSQL 9.1 performance problem.
Our server hosts databases that are about 1 GB in size with the
largest tables having order 10 million 20-byte
We saw a little bit improvement by increasing the min_pool_size but again I see
a bigvariation in the time the query is executed. Here is the query:
srdb= explain analyze SELECT
psrdb-artifact.id AS id,
psrdb-artifact.priority AS priority,
psrdb-project.path AS
