Very dangerous. I only did it as a test to guestimate what kind of
performance I might get if I got a static ram hard drive to put the WAL
onto.
Dann Corbit wrote:
> Isn't putting the WAL in memory dangerous in case of a power failure?
> I would think that RI would be compromised.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of William Yu
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:41 PM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Splitting queries across servers
>
> With a Quad Opteron (4 memory slots per CPU), you could put 64GB of RAM
> onto a single machine using 4GB DIMMs in every slot.
>
> The other option is to explore static memory storage. It's probably too
> expensive to put your entire DB onto such a device but moving just the
> WAL there would give you a pretty decent jump in write performance. (I
> ran some tests way back simulating this by using a RAMDISK to store the
> WAL files and got ~60% increase in an update-heavy mix.)
