On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> it's complex -- but I think the whole issue becomes moot soon because
> non consumer flash drives from here on out are going to have
> capacitors in them (the 720 ramsdale will immediately knock out the
> x25-e). So the prudent course of act
> On Jun 16, 2011, at 20:43, Greg Smith wrote:
>> The layout you proposed (OS+WAL , data) might be effective, but if your
>> write volume is low it may not be much of an improvement at all over a
>> simple RAID1 of two drives. The odds that you are going to correctly
>> lay out individual section
On Jun 16, 2011, at 20:43, Greg Smith wrote:
> The layout you proposed (OS+WAL , data) might be effective, but if your write
> volume is low it may not be much of an improvement at all over a simple RAID1
> of two drives. The odds that you are going to correctly lay out individual
> sections o
On Jun 16, 2011, at 20:29, Jesper Krogh wrote:
> On 2011-06-16 17:09, Haestan wrote:
>> I am evaluating hardware for a new PostgreSQL server. For reasons
>> concerning power consumption and available space it should not have
>> more than 4 disks (in a 1U case), if possible. Now, I am not sure wha
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 03:04 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> I don't necessarily agree. the drives are SLC and have the potential
>> to have a much longer lifespan than any MLC drive, although this is
>> going to depend a lot on the raid controller if wr
On 06/16/2011 03:04 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I don't necessarily agree. the drives are SLC and have the potential
to have a much longer lifespan than any MLC drive, although this is
going to depend a lot on the raid controller if write caching is
disabled. Also, reading the post that got all th
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> These drives are one of the worst choices on the market for PostgreSQL
> storage. They're unusably slow if you disable the caches, and even that
> isn't guaranteed to work. There is no way to make them safe. See
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/w
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> There are already three layers involved here:
>
> -Database shared_buffers cache
> -Operating system read/write cache
> -RAID controller cache
>
> I would be skeptical that adding a fourth one near the bottom of this stack
> is likely to help a
On 06/16/2011 11:09 AM, Haestan wrote:
The cheaper option would be to buy 15k Seagate SAS disks with a 3ware
9750SA (battery backed) controller. Does it matter whether to use a
4-disk RAID10 or 2x 2-disk RAID1 (system+pg_xlog , pg_data) setup? Am
I right that both would be faster than just using
On 2011-06-16 17:09, Haestan wrote:
I am evaluating hardware for a new PostgreSQL server. For reasons
concerning power consumption and available space it should not have
more than 4 disks (in a 1U case), if possible. Now, I am not sure what
disks to use and how to layout them to get the best perf
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Haestan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am evaluating hardware for a new PostgreSQL server. For reasons
> concerning power consumption and available space it should not have
> more than 4 disks (in a 1U case), if possible. Now, I am not sure what
> disks to use and how to layo
Hi,
I am evaluating hardware for a new PostgreSQL server. For reasons
concerning power consumption and available space it should not have
more than 4 disks (in a 1U case), if possible. Now, I am not sure what
disks to use and how to layout them to get the best performance.
The cheaper option woul
12 matches
Mail list logo
