DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=r++98p1IMH1CtuOt3v7kzpPpjD1MWC8Vd5udydXdXUC0T9QmWGG6TovY6lhBsju8gW1UDgbCpdZRCx93USLLCKYjOdHM+tjO61gb8LxC1/sGnB25j6KrKJVmanQqFALswo5jNwoGAyW2dU4H3mF+iLT9dCm+TxpNFTWKOdL0cdI=
Message-ID: <f3c0b408050830091021e67d58@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:10:58 -0500
From: Matthew Nuzum <mattnuzum@gmail.com>
Reply-To: newz@bearfruit.org
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: RAID Configuration Sugestion
In-Reply-To: <20050830135018.GA27789@wolff.to>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <431452FD.3090402@atua.com.br> <20050830125808.GD22545@wolff.to>
	<43145BE1.9050306@atua.com.br> <20050830135018.GA27789@wolff.to>

> > >On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 09:37:17 -0300,
> > > Alvaro Nunes Melo <al_nunes@atua.com.br> wrote:
> > >>The server is a Dual Xeon 3.0 with 2 GB RAM and two SCSI disks. Our m=
ain
> > >>doubt is what is the best configuration for the disks. We are thinkin=
g
> > >>about use them in a RAID-0 array. Is this the best option? What do yo=
u
> > >>suggest on partitioning? Separate partitions for the OS, data and pg_=
xlog?
> > >
> > Our main goal is performance speedup. Disk space might not be a problem=
.
> > I've read a lot here about movig pg_xlog to different partitions, and
> > we'll surely make tests to see what configuration might be better.
>=20

I've set up several servers with a config like this. Its not ideal,
but there's no reason you can't enjoy the benefits of a snappy
application.

The best results I've had involve dedicating one drive to OS, swap,
logs, tmp and everything and dedicate one drive to postgres. If you
use *nix you can mount the second drive as /var/lib/pgsql (or where
ever postgres lives on your server) with noatime as a mount option.

In retrospect, you might have saved the money on the second CPU and
gotten two more hard drives, but if you're running a dual task server
(i.e. LAMP) you may appreciate the second CPU.

The beauty of a server like this is that it puts more of the wizardry
of creating a fast application into the hands of the app developer,
which results in a better db schema, optimized queries and generally
*thinking* about the performance of the code. I personally feel that
to be a very rewarding aspect of my job. (As a hobby I program
microntrollers that run at 4MHz and have only 256 bytes of RAM, so
that could just be me.;-)

--=20
Matthew Nuzum
www.bearfruit.org