Re: Large Database Design Help

From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
To: Ragnar <gnari(at)hive(dot)is>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large Database Design Help
Date: 2006-02-10 22:42:25
Message-ID: 1139611345.22740.151.camel@state.g2switchworks.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:39, Ragnar wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:24 +0100, Markus Schaber wrote:
>
> > For lots non-read-only database workloads, RAID5 is a performance
> > killer. Raid 1/0 might be better, or having two mirrors of two disks
> > each, the first mirror holding system, swap, and the PostgreSQL WAL
> > files, the second one holding the data.
>
> I was under the impression that it is preferable to keep the WAL on
> its own spindles with no other activity there, to take full advantage
> of the sequential nature of the WAL writes.
>
> That would mean one mirror for the WAL, and one for the rest.
> This, of course, may sometimes be too much wasted disk space, as the WAL
> typically will not use a whole disk, so you might partition this mirror
> into a small ext2 filesystem for WAL, and use the rest for files seldom
> accessed, such as backups.

Well, on most database servers, the actual access to the OS and swap
drives should drop to about zero over time, so this is a workable
solution if you've only got enough drives / drive slots for two mirrors.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tim Jones 2006-02-10 22:43:58 Re: joining two tables slow due to sequential scan
Previous Message Ragnar 2006-02-10 22:39:54 Re: Large Database Design Help