From: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
To: Eric Pierce <epierce@saasmadeeasy.com>
To: Evgeniy Shishkin <itparanoia@gmail.com>
To: Andrea Suisani <sickpig@opinioni.net>
Cc: mfatticcioni@mbigroup.it <mfatticcioni@mbigroup.it>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Tuning the configuration
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:04:19 +1300
Message-ID: <548A3103.70203@catalyst.net.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cf0230bc733d4f9aa7d7d0d35e2ffa4f@H-EX-01.hosting.local>
References: <548823F8.4070003@mbigroup.it>
<548987D7.7040304@opinioni.net>
<6B084BAC-82C6-410A-88D4-9CDC01DA8C09@gmail.com>
<cf0230bc733d4f9aa7d7d0d35e2ffa4f@H-EX-01.hosting.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 12/12/14 11:36, Eric Pierce wrote:
>
> ________________________________________
> From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org> on behalf of Evgeniy Shishkin <itparanoia@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:11 AM
> To: Andrea Suisani
> Cc: mfatticcioni@mbigroup.it; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning the configuration
>
>> On 11 Dec 2014, at 15:02, Andrea Suisani <sickpig@opinioni.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/2014 11:44 AM, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
>>> 2- I would like to use the two SDD to store the wal file. Do you think
>>> it is useful or how should I use them?
>>
>> I definitely would give it a try.
>>
>
>
>> I don't understand the logic behind using drives,
>> which are best for random io, for sequent io workloads.
>
>> Better use 10k sas with BBU raid for wal, money wise.
>
> Very much agree with this. Because SSD is fast doesn't make it suited for certain things, and a streaming sequential 100% write workload is one of them. I've worked with everything from local disk to high-end SAN and even at the high end we've always put any DB logs on spinning disk. RAID1 is generally sufficient. SSD is king for read heavy random I/O workload.
>
Mind you wal is a little different - the limiting factor is (usually)
not raw sequential speed but fsync latency. These days a modern SSD has
fsync response pretty much equal to that of a card with BBU + spinners -
and has "more" high speed storage available (cards usually have only a
1G or so of RAM on them).
regards
Mark
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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: mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz, epierce@saasmadeeasy.com, itparanoia@gmail.com, sickpig@opinioni.net, mfatticcioni@mbigroup.it
Subject: Re: Tuning the configuration
In-Reply-To: <548A3103.70203@catalyst.net.nz>
* 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