At 12:52 AM 12/6/2005, Thomas Harold wrote:
David Lang wrote:
in that case you logicly have two disks, so see the post from Ron
earlier in this thread.
And it's a very nice performance gain. Percent spent waiting
according to top is down around 10-20% instead of 80-90%. While
I'm not
Ron wrote:
For accuracy's sake, which exact config did you finally use?
How did you choose the config you finally used? Did you test the three
options or just pick one?
(Note: I'm not the original poster.)
I just picked the option of putting the data/pg_xlog directory (WAL) on
a 2nd set
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Thomas Harold wrote:
Ron wrote:
For accuracy's sake, which exact config did you finally use?
How did you choose the config you finally used? Did you test the three
options or just pick one?
(Note: I'm not the original poster.)
I just picked the option of putting the
Rick Schumeyer wrote:
1) the input data file
2) the pg table
3) the WAL
And journal of file system, especially if you not set noatime mount
option. WAL and file system journal like to make sync.
IMHO: on first disk (raid mirror:)) I place /, pg_table and file system
Ron wrote:
At 01:58 PM 12/2/2005, Rick Schumeyer wrote:
I installed another drive in my linux pc in an attempt to improve
performance
on a large COPY to a table with a geometry index.
Based on previous discussion, it seems there are three things
competing for the hard drive:
1) the
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Thomas Harold wrote:
(noob question incoming)
Section 26.4 WAL Internals
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/wal-internals.html
This seems to be the applicable chapter. They talk about creating a symlink
for the data/pg_xlog folder to point at another disk
David Lang wrote:
the application can' tell the difference, but the reason for seperating
them isn't for the application, it's so that different pieces of
hardware can work on different things without having to bounce back and
forth between them.
useing the same drives with LVM doesn't
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Thomas Harold wrote:
Yeah, I don't think I was clear about the config. It's (4) disks setup as a
pair of RAID1 sets. My original config was pgsql on the first RAID set (data
and WAL). I'm now experimenting with putting the data/pg_xlog folder on the
2nd set of disks.
David Lang wrote:
in that case you logicly have two disks, so see the post from Ron
earlier in this thread.
And it's a very nice performance gain. Percent spent waiting according
to top is down around 10-20% instead of 80-90%. While I'm not
prepared to benchmark, database performance is
At 01:58 PM 12/2/2005, Rick Schumeyer wrote:
I installed another drive in my linux pc in an attempt to improve performance
on a large COPY to a table with a geometry index.
Based on previous discussion, it seems there are three things
competing for the hard drive:
1) the input data
10 matches
Mail list logo
