pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Niels Kristian Schjødt <nielskristian@autouncle.com>
Cc: Evgeny Shishkin <itparanoia@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Do I have a hardware or a software problem?
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:26:36 +0800
Message-ID: <50C912AC.8070502@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C6A943C0-BD00-4CC2-9D37-43EF2D98027F@autouncle.com>
References: <AE27BD07-7A3A-449A-BD3F-A0DF4EF76C04@autouncle.com>
	<CAMkU=1zcXD5YWMD=QOAdoNG0BKoB-DAXKbzBKybE-3w-YzhSgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<8F7661E7-D6D4-4334-8C6A-A8B6C56A2C3F@autouncle.com>
	<50C7351C.30407@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<4507A68A-3CD5-4283-AFA5-1C0593427E14@autouncle.com>
	<67FBF3AF-5C6A-45D4-9206-7257C8C01C5E@gmail.com>
	<CADZnK0nmm=2WnVVsveu3j0sJ95Ct13SqKbjQ_9DeVCGAmrcggw@mail.gmail.com>
	<E2A43856-FE0A-44BC-9764-C3CA533D94D9@gmail.com>
	<CADZnK0=0q9Ti9jVpCX3VX=3X_Rs=AxONhxC9cejnbOd5GKjb4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<ED7DEE06-B822-43E0-AF49-D89BB40C4C83@gmail.com>
	<50C7D7D2.4070605@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<2BCB6843-1396-42C9-A5BF-21C7C978FF4B@gmail.com>
	<50C7DDDE.1000000@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<3ADBD9A3-966F-40E8-AF78-0F2093D79BEE@gmail.com>
	<50C7E598.2070902@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<8A08ED7E-CF78-4F40-ACF1-1C87CEBBD00A@gmail.com>
	<50C7F057.70309@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<C6A943C0-BD00-4CC2-9D37-43EF2D98027F@autouncle.com>
List-Unsubscribe:  <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>

On 13/12/2012 12:22 AM, Niels Kristian Schjødt wrote:
> Well, In fact I do (as you can see from my configuration). I have a
> similar server running with hot standby replication - and it runs two
> 3T HDD in a RAID1 array.
>
> So - is it still very bad if I choose to put four intel 520 disks in a
> RAID10 array on the other production server?
So long as you have it recording to a synchronous replia on another
machine and you're fully prepared to accept the small risk that you'll
have total and unrecoverable data corruption on that server, with the
corresponding downtime while you rebuild it from the replica, it should
be OK.

Alternately, you could use PITR with a basebackup to ship WAL to another
machine or a reliable HDD, so you can recover all but the last
checkpoint_timeout minutes of data from the base backup + WAL. There's
small window of data loss that way, but you don't need a second machine
as a streaming replication follower. barman might is worth checking out
as a management tool for PITR backups.

If the data is fairly low-value you could even just take nightly backups
and accept the risk of losing some data.

--
Craig Ringer

view thread (35+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <50C912AC.8070502@2ndquadrant.com>
Permalink:  ../50C912AC.8070502@2ndquadrant.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/50C912AC.8070502@2ndquadrant.com

 · 

reply
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: craig@2ndquadrant.com, nielskristian@autouncle.com, itparanoia@gmail.com, jeff.janes@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: Do I have a hardware or a software problem?
  In-Reply-To: <50C912AC.8070502@2ndquadrant.com>

* 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