On Jun 16, 2011, at 20:29, Jesper Krogh wrote:
On 2011-06-16 17:09, Haestan wrote:
I am evaluating hardware for a new PostgreSQL server. For reasons
concerning power consumption and available space it should not have
more than 4 disks (in a 1U case), if possible. Now, I am not sure what
On Jun 16, 2011, at 20:43, Greg Smith wrote:
The layout you proposed (OS+WAL , data) might be effective, but if your write
volume is low it may not be much of an improvement at all over a simple RAID1
of two drives. The odds that you are going to correctly lay out individual
sections of a
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
it's complex -- but I think the whole issue becomes moot soon because
non consumer flash drives from here on out are going to have
capacitors in them (the 720 ramsdale will immediately knock out the
x25-e). So the
Hi,
I am evaluating hardware for a new PostgreSQL server. For reasons
concerning power consumption and available space it should not have
more than 4 disks (in a 1U case), if possible. Now, I am not sure what
disks to use and how to layout them to get the best performance.
The cheaper option
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Haestan haes...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am evaluating hardware for a new PostgreSQL server. For reasons
concerning power consumption and available space it should not have
more than 4 disks (in a 1U case), if possible. Now, I am not sure what
disks to use and
On 2011-06-16 17:09, Haestan wrote:
I am evaluating hardware for a new PostgreSQL server. For reasons
concerning power consumption and available space it should not have
more than 4 disks (in a 1U case), if possible. Now, I am not sure what
disks to use and how to layout them to get the best
On 06/16/2011 11:09 AM, Haestan wrote:
The cheaper option would be to buy 15k Seagate SAS disks with a 3ware
9750SA (battery backed) controller. Does it matter whether to use a
4-disk RAID10 or 2x 2-disk RAID1 (system+pg_xlog , pg_data) setup? Am
I right that both would be faster than just using
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
There are already three layers involved here:
-Database shared_buffers cache
-Operating system read/write cache
-RAID controller cache
I would be skeptical that adding a fourth one near the bottom of this stack
is
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
These drives are one of the worst choices on the market for PostgreSQL
storage. They're unusably slow if you disable the caches, and even that
isn't guaranteed to work. There is no way to make them safe. See
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 06/16/2011 03:04 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I don't necessarily agree. the drives are SLC and have the potential
to have a much longer lifespan than any MLC drive, although this is
going to depend a lot on the raid
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:47:48 +0200, Michael Mattox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|INFO: --Relation public.jdo_sequencex--
|INFO: Pages 28: Changed 1, Empty 0; Tup 1: Vac 5124, Keep 0, UnUsed 0.
^
This table could stand more frequent VACUUMs,
11 matches
Mail list logo
