From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Michael Kohl <michael.kohl@tupalo.com>
Subject: Re: High load,
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:19:35 +0100
Message-ID: <201101271919.35382.andres@anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikTSkGKNXdqJOP_D78mXSRv-NXMZUnd4Q80qqwv@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikBFzUKmWcVBz_5GQZeQOWtj7Kfeov=M9TWBOJf@mail.gmail.com>
<20110127175422.GB30352@tamriel.snowman.net>
<AANLkTikTSkGKNXdqJOP_D78mXSRv-NXMZUnd4Q80qqwv@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 07:13:17 PM Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Michael Kohl (michael.kohl@tupalo.com) wrote:
> >> HDD: 2x 120 GB OCZ Vertex 2 SSD; RAID 1
> >
> > I'm amazed no one else has mentioned this yet, but you should look into
> > splitting your data and your WALs. Obviously, having another set of
> > SSDs to put your WALs on would be ideal.
>
> Actually spinning media would be a better choice. A pair of fast
> 15krpm drives in a mirror will almost always outrun an SSD for
> sequential write speed. Even meh-grade 7200RPM SATA drives will win.
Unless he is bulk loading or running with synchronous_commit=off sequential
speed wont be the limit for WAL. The number of syncs will be the limit.
Andres
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@anarazel.de, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, sfrost@snowman.net, michael.kohl@tupalo.com
Subject: Re: High load,
In-Reply-To: <201101271919.35382.andres@anarazel.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox