Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:07:45 -0700
From: Kenji Morishige <kenjim@juniper.net>
To: "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, kenjim@juniper.net
Subject: Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000
Message-ID: <20060808220745.GC6418@juniper.net>
References: <20060808204354.GN29379@juniper.net>
	<44D906E1.7010405@commandprompt.com>
	<9EE66C7F-0B04-4472-9EBD-CD567AC9EA1D@sitening.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9EE66C7F-0B04-4472-9EBD-CD567AC9EA1D@sitening.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

The 1+0 on the WAL is better than on PGDATA? I guess I'm confused about the
write sequence of the data. I will research more, thank you!
-Kenji

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:59:09PM -0500, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
> 
> On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
> >>I am considering a setup such as this:
> >>  - At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
> >>  - 4GB of RAM
> >>  - 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
> >>  - 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA
> >>  - 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog
> >>Does anyone know a vendor that might be able provide such setup?
> 
> Wouldn't it be preferable to put WAL on a multi-disk RAID 10 if you  
> had the opportunity? This gives you the redundancy of RAID 1 but  
> approaches the performance of RAID 0, especially as you add disks to  
> the array. In benchmarking, I've seen consistent success with this  
> approach.
> 
> --
> Thomas F. O'Connell
> Sitening, LLC
> 
> http://www.sitening.com/
> 3004B Poston Avenue
> Nashville, TN 37203-1314
> 615-469-5150 x802
> 615-469-5151 (fax)