Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466C9632A51 for ; Thu, 6 May 2010 10:36:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16151-05 for ; Thu, 6 May 2010 13:36:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from hermes.vectorsf.com (firewall.vectorsf.com [62.82.80.62]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E38A6338E0 for ; Thu, 6 May 2010 10:36:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.vectorsf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C64511C0258; Thu, 6 May 2010 15:36:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at hermes.vectorsf.com Received: from hermes.vectorsf.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hermes.vectorsf.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K4hWzSG4V+K0; Thu, 6 May 2010 15:36:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.70.4.200] (unknown [10.70.4.200]) (Authenticated sender: imartinez) by hermes.vectorsf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF3011C0250; Thu, 6 May 2010 15:36:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: 6 SCSI Disks RAID 10 x 2 SCSI DISKS RAID1 + 4 SCSI Disks RAID 10 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1igo?= Martinez Lasala To: Renato Oliveira Cc: "pgsql-admin@postgresql.org" In-Reply-To: <7965A9DCF12CC14984420BCC37B1608F25AC1C6A3F@Elzar.grant.co.uk> References: <7965A9DCF12CC14984420BCC37B1608F25AC1C6A3F@Elzar.grant.co.uk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-8msXYqjSzAUTxSdPtP/A" Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 15:36:10 +0200 Message-ID: <1273152970.6871.14.camel@deimos> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.909 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201005/85 X-Sequence-Number: 34558 --=-8msXYqjSzAUTxSdPtP/A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think it's better to put all disk in a RAID10. Your max throughput with 6 disks will be a 50% better that with 4 disks, and operating system once booted, does not have to read/write but a few times. I would divide RAID volume in several partitions: at least, operating system (/), swap and database (/srv/database) and better another for homes (/homes). Optionally, another one for logfiles (/var/log). That's my suggestion. Perhaps somebody has another point of view, but I prefer to rely in RAID controller and not in putting database stuff in separated disks. -----Original Message----- From: Renato Oliveira To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: [ADMIN] 6 SCSI Disks RAID 10 x 2 SCSI DISKS RAID1 + 4 SCSI Disks RAID 10 Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 14:10:49 +0100 Good afternoon Guys, I have been reading about RAID for PostgreSQL and some suggestions are: 6 SCSI Disks RAID10 for OS and DB Or 2 SCSI Disks RAID 1 for OS + 4 SCSI RAID 10 for DB I know the more spindles you have the better, but if you are going to be reading and writing to the same volume with a single controller, how good that will be? How do you guys have your RAIDS setup? Thank you Renato Renato Oliveira Systems Administrator e-mail: renato.oliveira@grant.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1763 260811 Fax: +44 (0)1763 262410 www.grant.co.uk Grant Instruments (Cambridge) Ltd Company registered in England, registration number 658133 Registered office address: 29 Station Road, Shepreth, CAMBS SG8 6GB UK P Please consider the environment before printing this email CONFIDENTIALITY: The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential. It is intended only for the named recipients(s). If you are not the named recipient please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person or take copies. VIRUSES: The contents of this e-mail or attachment(s) may contain viruses which could damage your own computer system. Whilst Grant Instruments (Cambridge) Ltd has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should therefore carry out your own virus checks before opening the attachment(s). OpenXML: For information about the OpenXML file format in use within Grant Instruments please visit our website --=-8msXYqjSzAUTxSdPtP/A Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think it's better to put all disk in a RAID10. Your max throughput with 6 disks will be a 50% better that with 4 disks, and operating system once booted, does not have to read/write but a few times.

I would divide RAID volume in several partitions: at least, operating system (/), swap and database (/srv/database) and better another for homes (/homes). Optionally, another one for logfiles (/var/log).

That's my suggestion.  Perhaps somebody has another point of view, but I prefer to rely in RAID controller and not in putting database stuff in separated disks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Renato Oliveira <renato.oliveira@grant.co.uk>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: [ADMIN] 6 SCSI Disks RAID 10 x 2 SCSI DISKS RAID1 + 4 SCSI Disks RAID 10
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 14:10:49 +0100

Good afternoon Guys,

 

I have been reading about RAID for PostgreSQL and some suggestions are:

 

6 SCSI Disks RAID10 for OS and DB

Or

2 SCSI Disks RAID 1 for OS + 4 SCSI RAID 10 for DB

 

I know the more spindles you have the better, but if you are going to be reading and writing to the same volume with a single controller, how good that will be?

 

How do you guys have  your RAIDS setup?

 

Thank you

 

Renato

 

 

 

 


  Renato Oliveira
Systems Administrator
e-mail: renato.oliveira@grant.co.uk   Tel: +44 (0)1763 260811
Fax: +44 (0)1763 262410
www.grant.co.uk   Grant Instruments (Cambridge) Ltd
 
Company registered in England, registration number 658133
 
Registered office address:
29 Station Road,
Shepreth,
CAMBS SG8 6GB
UK  
 
 
   

P Please consider the environment before printing this email


CONFIDENTIALITY: The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential. It is intended only for the named recipients(s). If you are not the named recipient please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person or take copies.  
VIRUSES: The contents of this e-mail or attachment(s) may contain viruses which could damage your own computer system. Whilst Grant Instruments (Cambridge) Ltd has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should therefore carry out your own virus checks before opening the attachment(s).  
OpenXML: For information about the OpenXML file format in use within Grant Instruments please visit our website
--=-8msXYqjSzAUTxSdPtP/A--