> -Mensaje original-
> De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de cluster
> Enviado el: Sábado, 30 de Agosto de 2008 07:21
> Para: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Best hardware/cost tradoff?
>
> We are now leaning t
We are now leaning towards just buying 4 SAS disks.
So should I just make one large RAID-10 partition or make two RAID-1's
having the log on one RAID and everything else on the second RAID?
How can I get the best read/write performance out of these four disks?
(Remember, that it is a combined w
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:29 PM, cluster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for all your replies! They are enlightening. I have some additional
> questions:
>
> 1) Would you prefer
> a) 5.4k 2" SATA RAID10 on four disks or
> b) 10k 2" SAS RAID1 on two disks?
> (Remember the lots (!) of random
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Fernando Hevia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I havent had any issues with software raid (mdadm) and hot-swaps. It keeps
> working in degraded mode and as soon as you replace the defective disk it
> can reconstruct the array on the fly. Performance will suffer while
Thanks for all your replies! They are enlightening. I have some
additional questions:
1) Would you prefer
a) 5.4k 2" SATA RAID10 on four disks or
b) 10k 2" SAS RAID1 on two disks?
(Remember the lots (!) of random reads)
2) Should I just make one large partition of my RAID? Does it matter
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* I think we will go for hardware-based RAID 1 with a good
battery-backed-up controller. I have read that software RAID
perform surprisingly good, but for a production site where
hotplug replacement of dead disks is required, is software
RAID s
> -Mensaje original-
> De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de cluster
>
> I'm about to buy a combined web- and database server. When
> (if) the site gets sufficiently popular, we will split the
> database out to a separate server.
>
> Our budget is limited, s
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:22 PM, cluster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm about to buy a combined web- and database server. When (if) the site
> gets sufficiently popular, we will split the database out to a separate
> server.
>
> Our budget is limited, so how should we prioritize?
Standard priori
I'm about to buy a combined web- and database server. When (if) the site
gets sufficiently popular, we will split the database out to a separate
server.
Our budget is limited, so how should we prioritize?
* We think about buying some HP Proliant server with at least 4GB ram
and at least a duo
Hello Bernd Jagla,
Are you the Bernd from Berlin? I am looking for you and found your name on the internet. Would you please contact me?
Mirjam Tilstra
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance forum at Nabble.com:
Re: Best hardware
Quoting Bernd Jagla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ... the speed of the head of the HD is actually
> limitiing. Also, I only experimented with RAID5, and heard that
> RAID10 will be good for reading but not writing.
Au contraire. RAID5 is worse than RAID10 for writing, because it has the
extra implicit r
Hi there,
And sorry for bringing this up again, but I couldn't find any recent
discussion on the best hardware, and I know it actually depends on what you
are doing...
So this is what I had in mind:
Our database is going to consist of about 100 tables or so of which only a
hand full will be real
12 matches
Mail list logo
