From: | David Lang <dlang(at)invendra(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Harold <tgh(at)tgharold(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: two disks - best way to use them? |
Date: | 2005-12-06 21:57:12 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.62.0512061355130.23958@qnivq.ynat.uz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Thomas Harold wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>
>> For accuracy's sake, which exact config did you finally use?
>>
>> How did you choose the config you finally used? Did you test the three
>> options or just pick one?
>
> (Note: I'm not the original poster.)
>
> I just picked the option of putting the data/pg_xlog directory (WAL) on a 2nd
> set of spindles. That was the easiest thing for me to change on this test
> box.
>
> The test server is simply a Gentoo box running software RAID and LVM2. The
> primary disk set is 2x7200RPM 300GB drives and the secondary disk set is
> 2x5400RPM 300GB drives. Brand new install of PGSQL 8.1, with mostly default
> settings (I changed FSM pages to be a higher value, max_fsm_pages = 150000).
> PGSQL was given it's own ext3 32GB LVM volume on the primary disk set
> (2x7200RPM). Originally, all files were on the primary disk.
the WAL is more sensitive to drive speeds then the data is, so you may
pick up a little more performance by switching the WAL to the 7200 rpm
drives instead of the 5400 rpm drives.
if you see a noticable difference with this, consider buying a pair of
smaller, but faster drives (10k or 15k rpm drives, or a solid-state
drive). you can test this (with significant data risk) by putting the WAL
on a ramdisk and see what your performance looks like.
David Lang
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ameet Kini | 2005-12-06 22:03:22 | Re: postgresql performance tuning |
Previous Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-12-06 21:52:22 | Re: Context switching and Xeon processors |