On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 10:37 -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> The problem is that if you lose WAL or the data, you've lost everything.
> So you might as well use raid0 for the data if you're using it for WAL.
> Or switch WAL to raid1. Actually, a really good controller *might* be
> able to do a good job of raid5 for WAL. Or just use raid10.
If the WAL is lost, can you lose more than the data since the last
checkpoint?
--
Ian Westmacott <ianw@intellivid.com>
Intellivid Corp.
