From: Leigh Dyer <leigh@eclinic.com.au>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Faster drives for WAL than for data?
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:24:48 +1000
Message-ID: <42C0A6E0.6000101@eclinic.com.au> (raw)
Hi all,
My company currently runs a number of both web-based and more
transactional projects on a PostgreSQL 7.3 server, and we're looking to
upgrade to a new machine running 8.0 to boost performance and handle
data growth in to the future.
Right now I'm looking at a Sun Fire V40z server in a fairly modest
configuration: 2 Opteron 848 (2.2ghz) CPUs, and 4GB of RAM. The V40z has
6 drive bays, and from earlier posts and the info at
http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList/ it sounds like the best
configuration would be:
* 2 drives in RAID 1 for OS and WAL
* 4 drives in RAID 1+0 for data
However, using 73gb 15krpm drives, I'll be limiting myself to about
140GB of data storage, and I'm not sure if this will be enough to cover
the life of the server. If I stick with the faster drives for the WAL,
how significant a performance impact will there be if I use larger
10krpm drives for the data?
Also, if anyone could recommend a SCSI RAID card for this configuration,
or if anyone has any other suggestions, it'd be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Leigh
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: leigh@eclinic.com.au
Subject: Re: Faster drives for WAL than for data?
In-Reply-To: <42C0A6E0.6000101@eclinic.com.au>
* 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