X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C0411F65C0 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:28:04 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: 0.144 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.144 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qQbvtwipQJPQ for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:27:59 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F403111F65AA for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:28:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (localhost.natserv.net [127.0.0.1]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D33B81F; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:28:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 35st-server.simplicato.com (static-71-249-233-130.nycmny.east.verizon.net [71.249.233.130]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42883B81D; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:28:00 -0400 (EDT) References: <443DA715.4060606@gmail.com> <9549.1144903344@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060414055923.GX49405@pervasive.com> <20060414114911.GG32678@mathom.us> <20060414190620.GH32678@mathom.us> <1145045732.23538.86.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Francisco Reyes To: Scott Marlowe Cc: Michael Stone , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Inserts optimization? Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:27:59 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Archive-Number: 200604/346 X-Sequence-Number: 18430 Scott Marlowe writes: > Spares are placed in service one at a time. Ah.. that's your point. I know that. :-) > You don't need 2 spares for > RAID 10, trust me. We bought the machine with 8 drives. At one point we were considering RAID 5, then we decided to give RAID 10 a try. We have a simmilar machine with raid 5 and less memory (2GB, vs 4GB on the new machine) and the old machine was having some very serious issues handling the load. So far the RAID10 machine (twice the memory, newer disks, faster CPUs,.. the previous machine was about 1 year old) has been performing very well. We are now looking to put our 3rd NFS machine into production with identical specs as the machine we currently use with RAID10. This 3rd machine with do NFS work (mail store) and also will be our database server (until we can afford to buy a 4th.. dedicated DB machine). The whole reason I started the thread was because most PostgreSQL setups I have done in the past were mostly read.. whereas now the Bacula backups plus another app we will be developing.. will be doing considerable writes to the DB.