X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD180D7D44
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:27:33 -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 44752-02
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:27:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from hosting.commandprompt.com (128.commandprompt.com
	[207.173.200.128])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888EFD7BC4
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:27:28 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (clbb-248.saw.net [64.146.135.248])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by hosting.commandprompt.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id
	j7UJOvjZ024904; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:24:57 -0700
Message-ID: <4314B329.20009@commandprompt.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:27:37 -0700
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050727)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: RAID Configuration Sugestion
References: <431452FD.3090402@atua.com.br>
	<6.2.3.4.0.20050830103240.0219b640@pop.earthlink.net>
	<43148FC4.4000407@commandprompt.com>
	<6.2.3.4.0.20050830132902.021a5308@pop.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20050830132902.021a5308@pop.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-1.6 (hosting.commandprompt.com [192.168.1.101]);
	Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.022 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200508/539
X-Sequence-Number: 14286


>
>> If you still have the budget, I would suggest considering either what 
>> Ron suggested or possibly using a 4 drive RAID 10 instead.
>
>
> IME, with only 4 HDs, it's usually better to split them them into two 
> RAID 1's (one for the db, one for everything else including the logs) 
> than it is to put everything on one RAID 10.  YMMV.

Really? That's interesting.  My experience is different, I assume SCSI? 
Software/Hardware Raid?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


>
>
> Ron Peacetree
>