From: August Zajonc <augustz@augustz.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: LVM and Postgres
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:12:22 -0800
Message-ID: <dn4rb3$2d55$1@news.hub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051206093818.GE6708@campbell-lange.net>
References: <20051206093818.GE6708@campbell-lange.net>
Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
> The server has a 250GB RAID10 (LSI 320-I + BBU) volume which I am
> thinking of slicing up in the following way (Linux 2.6 kernel):
>
> / : ext3 : 47GB (root, home etc)
> /boot : ext3 : 1GB
> /tmp : ext2 : 2GB
> /usr : ext3 : 4GB
> /var : ext3 : 6GB
> -----------------------
> 60GB
>
> VG : 190GB approx
> -----------------------
> Initially divided so:
> /data : ext3 : 90GB
> /postgres : xfs : 40GB
>
> This gives me left over space of roughly 60GB to extend into on the
> volume group, which I can balance between the /data and /postgres
> logical volumes as needed.
>
> Are there any major pitfalls to this approach?
>
> Thanks,
> Rory
>
It looks like you are using fast disks and xfs for filesystem on the
/postgresql partition. That's nice.
How many disks in the array?
One thing you miss is sticking a bunch of sequential log writes on a
separate spindle as far as I can see with this? WAL / XFS (i think) both
have this pattern. If you've got a fast disk and can do BBU write
caching your WAL writes will hustle.
Others can probably speak a bit better on any potential speedups.
- August
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: augustz@augustz.com
Subject: Re: LVM and Postgres
In-Reply-To: <dn4rb3$2d55$1@news.hub.org>
* 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