On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 16:15, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:02:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:40, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:47:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhuo wrote:
> > > > Xlog will be the only believable data if your system crashed. So it is a dangerous practice to put xlog stuff
inRAID0.
> > >
> > > No more or less so than putting your main database on RAID0. If any
> > > drive fails, you lose everything.
> >
> > Sounds like a good place to have replication.
>
> If you used syncronous replication, maybe. Otherwise failure of any
> drive means you just lost data. And remember that the more drives you
> have in your array the more likely you'll have a failure in a given
> time period.
>
> Basically, if you can afford to setup replication on 2 machines with
> RAID0 you can afford to setup RAID10 on one machine, which will usually
> be a better bet.
Yeah, I was thinking pgpool here.
