From: Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>
To: Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Raid 10 chunksize
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:14:34 -0700
Message-ID: <C5F9355A.40BE%scott@richrelevance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904011757580.21772@aragorn.flymine.org>
On 4/1/09 10:01 AM, "Matthew Wakeling" <matthew@flymine.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Stef Telford wrote:
>> Good UPS, a warm PITR standby, offsite backups and regular checks is
>> "good enough" for me, and really, that's what it all comes down to.
>> Mitigating risk and factors into an 'acceptable' amount for each person.
>> However, if you see over a 2x improvement from turning write-cache 'on'
>> and have everything else in place, well, that seems like a 'no-brainer'
>> to me, at least ;)
>
> In that case, buying a battery-backed-up cache in the RAID controller
> would be even more of a no-brainer.
>
> Matthew
>
Why? Honestly, SATA write cache is safer than a battery backed raid card.
The raid card is one more point of failure, and SATA write caches with a
modern file system is safe.
> --
> If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?
>
> --
> 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: scott@richrelevance.com, matthew@flymine.org
Subject: Re: Raid 10 chunksize
In-Reply-To: <C5F9355A.40BE%scott@richrelevance.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