On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 19:08 -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 11:00:38AM -0500, Ian Westmacott wrote:
> > The WAL is a 2-spindle (SATA) RAID0 with its own controller (ext3).
> > The tables are on a 10-spindle (SCSI) RAID50 with dual U320
> > controllers (XFS). This is overkill for writing and querying the data,
> > but we need to constantly ANALYZE and VACUUM in the
> > background without interrupting the inserts (the app is 24x7). The
> > databases are 4TB, so these operations can be lengthy.
>
> How come you're using RAID50 instead of just RAID0? Or was WAL being on
> RAID0 a typo?
We use RAID50 instead of RAID0 for the tables for some fault-tolerance.
We use RAID0 for the WAL for performance.
I'm missing the implication of the question...
--
Ian Westmacott <ianw@intellivid.com>
Intellivid Corp.
