X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2725252973 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:38:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18083-10 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:38:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail0.rawbw.com (mail0.rawbw.com [198.144.192.41]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F70252969 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:38:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: (from www@localhost) by mail0.rawbw.com (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) id j5HKcfN76675 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cybs-gw.ic3.com (cybs-gw.ic3.com [66.185.177.10]) by webmail.rawbw.com (IMP) with HTTP for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:38:41 -0700 Message-ID: <1119040721.42b334d1c3ec9@webmail.rawbw.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:38:41 -0700 From: mudfoot@rawbw.com To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Multiple disks: RAID 5 or PG Cluster References: <7a1914222f313b7c5e88bedb8a662f12@implements.be> In-Reply-To: <7a1914222f313b7c5e88bedb8a662f12@implements.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 66.185.177.10 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.178 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=NO_REAL_NAME X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/353 X-Sequence-Number: 12990 If you truly do not care about data protection -- either from drive loss or from sudden power failure, or anything else -- and just want to get the fastest possible performance, then do RAID 0 (striping). It may be faster to do that with software RAID on the host than with a special RAID controller. And turn off fsyncing the write ahead log in postgresql.conf (fsync = false). But be prepared to replace your whole database from scratch (or backup or whatever) if you lose a single hard drive. And if you have a sudden power loss or other type of unclean system shutdown (kernel panic or something) then your data integrity will be at risk as well. To squeeze evena little bit more performance, put your operating system, swap and PostgreSQL binaries on a cheap IDE or SATA drive--and only your data on the 5 striped SCSI drives. I do not know what clustering would do for you. But striping will provide a high level of assurance that each of your hard drives will process equivalent amounts of IO operations. Quoting Yves Vindevogel : > Hi, > > We are looking to build a new machine for a big PG database. > We were wondering if a machine with 5 scsi-disks would perform better > if we use a hardware raid 5 controller or if we would go for the > clustering in PG. > If we cluster in PG, do we have redundancy on the data like in a RAID 5 > ? > > First concern is performance, not redundancy (we can do that a > different way because all data comes from upload files) > > Met vriendelijke groeten, > Bien à vous, > Kind regards, > > Yves Vindevogel > Implements > >