On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 10:01, Alexander Priem wrote:
> OK, another change of plans :)
>
> ext2 seems to be a bad idea. So i'll stick with ext3. Better safe than
> sorry...
Don't forget noatime!
> About the RAID-config: Maybe RAID-10 with six disks is affordable after all.
> I would have to take the smallest disks in this case, 18Gb per disk. So six
> 18Gb disks (15000rpm) would result in a total capacity of 54 Gb, right? This
> volume would hold OS, WAL and data, but since RAID10 appears to deliver such
> great performance (according to several people), in combination with the
> 128Mb of battery backed cache, this would be a good solution?
>
> Hmmm. I keep changing my mind about this. My Db would be mostly 'selecting',
> but there would also be pretty much inserting and updating done. But most of
> the work would be selects. So would this config be OK?
Others may disagree, but I'd put the OS and executables on a separate
disk from the db and WAL, and make it an IDE drive, since it's so
much less expensive than SCSI disks. (Make a copy of the disk, and
if it craps out, pop out the old disk, stick in the new disk, and
fire the box right back up...)
Thus, you'll have an OS/executables disk, and a separate DB disk,
and never the twain shall meet. Theoretically, you could pick up
those 6 drives and controller, move them to another machine, and
the data should be just as it was on the other box.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian |
| because I hate vegetables!" |
| unknown |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
