On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Scott Ribe <scott_r...@elevated-dev.com> wrote: > It's small enough that there's some other things going on at the same small > server with 4 disk bays ;-) My thinking was that write-back cache might > mitigate the poor write performance enough to not be noticed. This db doesn't > generally get big batch updates anyway, it's mostly a constant stream of > small updates coming in and I have a hard time imagining 256MB of cache > filling up very often. (I have at least a fuzzy understanding of how WAL > segments affect the write load.)
We run our internal dev server on RAID-6 and it works well enough. Again, like your usage case, it doesn't get beat up too hard, so RAID-6 works fine. I prefer RAID-6 because it doesn't degrade as bad as RAID-5 when a single drive fails, and of course it's still fully redundant with a single drive failure. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
