Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC042E0054
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  7 May 2008 13:00:07 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 39883-03
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  7 May 2008 12:59:53 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9972E002D
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  7 May 2008 12:59:54 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72])
	by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m47Fxr9W084901
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 7 May 2008 12:59:54 -0300 (ADT)
	(envelope-from news@news.hub.org)
Received: (from news@localhost)
	by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m47Fatu7077907
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
	Wed, 7 May 2008 12:36:55 -0300 (ADT) (envelope-from news)
From: Dennis Muhlestein <djmuhlestein@gmail.com>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance
Subject: Re: Possible Redundancy/Performance Solution
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 09:36:55 -0600
Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <fvsian$2b8o$1@news.hub.org>
References: <fvq189$2ej4$1@news.hub.org>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0805061316340.3589@westnet.com>
	<fvq854$ocq$1@news.hub.org>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0805061625150.11474@westnet.com>
	<fvqj5j$5v5$1@news.hub.org>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0805062030020.11322@westnet.com>
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: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0805062030020.11322@westnet.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200805/120
X-Sequence-Number: 30088


> 
> 1) RAID1+0 to make one big volume
> 2) RAID1 for OS/apps/etc, RAID1 for database
> 3) RAID1 for OS+xlog, RAID1 for database
> 4) RAID1 for OS+popular tables, RAID1 for rest of database

Lots of good info, thanks for all the replies.  It seems to me then, 
that the speed increase you'd get from raid0 is not worth the downtime 
risk, even when you have multiple servers.  I'll start pricing things 
out and see what options we have.

Thanks again,
Dennis