> I heard some say that the transaction log should be on
> it's own array, others say it doesn't hurt to have it
> on the same array as the OS. Is it really worthwhile
> to put it on it's own array?
>
> Can you guys see any glaring bottlenecks in my layout?
> Any other suggestions to offer (throw in more
> controllers, different RAID layout, etc.)? Our budget
> limit is $50k.
You should easily be able to fit in 50k since you already have the
storage device. I would suggest the following:
1. Throw in as much RAM as you can.
2. Yes put the transaction logs on a separate array. There are a couple
of reasons for this:
1. transaction logs are written sequentially so a RAID 1 is enough
2. You don't have to use a journaled fs for the transaction logs so it
is really fast.
3. IIRC the MSA 30 can take 14 drives. Make sure you put in all 14
drives and delegate two of them to hot spare duty.
I actually wonder if you would be better off putting the indexes on
tablespace A and use your core data set on the larger storage works array...
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. I know there was a very similar thread started by
> Ben Suffolk recently, I'd still like to have your
> "eyes of experience" look at my proposed layout :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
