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 313699DCF7E for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:12:25 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76906-08 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:12:25 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DB49DCBEC for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:12:22 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id CD1393094A; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 21:12:23 +0100 (MET) From: August Zajonc X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: LVM and Postgres Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:12:22 -0800 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <20051206093818.GE6708@campbell-lange.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <20051206093818.GE6708@campbell-lange.net> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/187 X-Sequence-Number: 16008 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