From: Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>
To: Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>, "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org"
	<pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:14:34 -0700
Subject: Re: Raid 10 chunksize
Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Raid 10 chunksize
Thread-Index: Acmy64sYGR2yMMKlTSip1bA1/BM1qAAK7GMx
Message-ID: <C5F9355A.40BE%scott@richrelevance.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904011757580.21772@aragorn.flymine.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


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 ;)
>=20
> In that case, buying a battery-backed-up cache in the RAID controller
> would be even more of a no-brainer.
>=20
> Matthew
>=20

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?
>=20
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org=
)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>=20