DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
	h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
	b=pf0tDemKYagn9wBe7XKXyhcaSXNtDxklUxjcF6dFPVX0Dh2dzV2Ad7wdUNk/cLuMnUSASr0+hSgeuh1eyZlCFYcc1sh0h8BNzaRpEMd31mI7g0F2uQP19L+QIDNS60waMUrH3Eyp2VtJpspkoMuwpLkv06QGKHBc/dgbOASGkVU=
	;
Message-ID: <20060614142344.13558.qmail@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: how to partition disks
To: Sven Geisler <sgeisler@aeccom.com>,
	hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@gmail.com>
Cc: Pgsql-Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <448FF5EB.8010808@aeccom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

> > raid 10 is of course not questionable. but are you sure that it will 
> > work faster than for example:
> > 2 discs (raid 1) for xlog
> > 6 discs (raid 10) for tables
> > 6 discs (raid 10) for indices?
> > 
> 
> This depends on your application. Do you have a lot of disc reads?
> Anyhow, I would put the xlog always to a RAID 10 volume because most of 
> the I/O for update and inserts is going to the xlog.
> 
> 4 discs xlog
> 6 discs tables
> 4 discs tables2

I have a question in regards to I/O bandwidths of various raid configuration.  Primary, does the
above suggested raid partitions imply that multiple (smaller) disk arrays have a potential for
more I/O bandwidth than a larger raid 10 array?

Regards,

Richard