pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archivehelp / color / mirror / Atom feed
Filesystem setup on new system 2+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* Filesystem setup on new system @ 2008-08-07 08:46 Henrik <henke@mac.se> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Henrik @ 2008-08-07 08:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-performance Hi list, I'm helping a customer with their new postgresql server and have some questions. The servers is connected to a SAN with dual raid cards which all have 512MB cache with BBU. The configuration they set up is now. 2 SAS 15K drives in RAID 1 on the internal controller for OS. 6 SAS 15K drives in RAID 10 on one of the SAN controllers for database 10 SATA 10K drives in RAID 5 on the second SAN controller for file storage. My first idea was to have one partition on the RAID 10 using ext3 with data=writeback, noatime as mount options. But I wonder if I should have 2 partitions on the RAID 10 one for the PGDATA dir using ext3 and one partition for XLOGS using ext2. Should I do this instead? Is there just a minor speed bump as the partitions are on the same channel or? If this is the way to go how should it be configured? How big should the xlog partition be? How should the fstab look like for the XLOG partition? Any other pointers, hints would be appreciated. Cheers, Henke ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Filesystem setup on new system @ 2008-08-08 22:42 Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> parent: Henrik <henke@mac.se> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Greg Smith @ 2008-08-08 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Henrik <henke@mac.se>; +Cc: pgsql-performance On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Henrik wrote: > My first idea was to have one partition on the RAID 10 using ext3 with > data=writeback, noatime as mount options. > > But I wonder if I should have 2 partitions on the RAID 10 one for the PGDATA > dir using ext3 and one partition for XLOGS using ext2. Really depends on your write volume. The write cache on your controller will keep having a separate xlog disk from being as important as it is without one. If your write volume is really high though, it may still be a bottleneck, and you may discover your app runs better with a dedicated ext2 xlog disk instead. The simple version is: WAL write volume extremely high->dedicated xlog can be better WAL volume low->more disks for the database array better even if that mixes the WAL on there as well If you want a true answer for which is better, you have to measure your application running on this hardware. > 6 SAS 15K drives in RAID 10 on one of the SAN controllers for database With only 6 disks available, in general you won't be able to reach the WAL as a bottleneck before being limited by seeks on the remaining 4 database disks, so you might as well group all 6 together. It's possible your particular application might prefer it the other way though, if you're doing a while lot of small writes for example. I've seen a separate WAL handle low-level benchmarks better, but on more real-world loads it's harder to run into that situation. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-08-08 22:42 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-08-07 08:46 Filesystem setup on new system Henrik <henke@mac.se> 2008-08-08 22:42 ` Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
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