Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
- From: Matthew <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
- To: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
- Cc: David Brain <dbrain(at)bandwidth(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:00:01 +0000 (GMT)
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Greg Smith wrote:
If you're seeing <100TPS you should consider if it's because you're limited by how fast WAL commits can make it to disk. If you really want good insert performance, there is no substitute for getting a disk controller with a good battery-backed cache to work around that. You could just put the WAL xlog directory on a RAID-1 pair of disks to accelerate that, you don't have to move the whole database to a new controller.
Hey, you *just* beat me to it.Yes, that's quite right. My suggestion was to move the whole thing, but Greg is correct - you only need to put the WAL on a cached disc system. That'd be quite a bit cheaper, I'd imagine.
Another case of that small SSD drive being useful, I think. Matthew
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
- From: Heikki Linnakangas
- Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
- References:
- 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
- From: David Brain
- Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
- From: Greg Smith
- 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
- Prev by Date: Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
- Next by Date: Re: Postgres 8.2 memory weirdness
- Previous by thread: Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
- Next by thread: Re: 1 or 2 servers for large DB scenario.
- Indexes: