Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFBD29FB431 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:03:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65333-08 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:03:23 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from beaver.fastcrypt.com (beaver.fastcrypt.com [64.7.141.17]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C849FA66C for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:03:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.14] (dcdsl.ebox.com [64.7.143.116]) by beaver.fastcrypt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486D61580683 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: postgresql performance list From: Dave Cramer Subject: best use of an EMC SAN Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:03:27 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200707/80 X-Sequence-Number: 25764 Assuming we have 24 73G drives is it better to make one big metalun and carve it up and let the SAN manage the where everything is, or is it better to specify which spindles are where. Currently we would require 3 separate disk arrays. one for the main database, second one for WAL logs, third one we use for the most active table. Problem with dedicating the spindles to each array is that we end up wasting space. Are the SAN's smart enough to do a better job if I create one large metalun and cut it up ? Dave