From: Ben <bench@silentmedia.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: drive configuration for a new server
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:41:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702011619240.8626@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
I'm looking to replace some old crusty hardware with some sparkling new
hardware. In the process, I'm looking to move away from the previous
mentality of having the Big Server for Everything to having a cluster of
servers, each of which handles some discrete subset of data. But rackspace
isn't inifinte, so I'm leaning towards cases that give me 8 drive bays.
This leaves me with an interesting problem of how to configure these
limited number of drives.
I know that ideally I would have seperate spindles for WAL, indexes, and
data. But I also know that I must be able to survive a drive failure, and
I want at least 1TB of space for my data. I suspect with so few drive
bays, I won't be living in an ideal world.
With an even mix of reads and writes (or possibly more writes than reads),
is it better to use RAID10 and have everything on the same partition, or
to have data and indexes on a 6-drive RAID5 with WAL on its own RAID1?
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: bench@silentmedia.com
Subject: Re: drive configuration for a new server
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702011619240.8626@localhost.localdomain>
* 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