Re: table spaces - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Gregg Jaskiewicz
Subject Re: table spaces
Date
Msg-id CAJY59_hUf-QYJYtiGu_Po_uKXPgHYwZL=Yoyt4kd=aoaZ8HXTg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: table spaces  (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>)
Responses Re: table spaces
List pgsql-general

On 12 March 2013 21:59, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
On 3/12/2013 2:31 PM, Gregg Jaskiewicz wrote:
I was basically under impression that separating WAL is a big plus. On top of that, having separate partition to hold some other data - will do too.
But it sounds - from what you said - like having all in single logical drive will work, because raid card will spread the load amongst number of drives.
Am I understanding that correctly ?


both those models have merits.

doing a single raid 10 should fairly evenly distribute the IO workload given adequate concurrency, and suitable stripe size and alignment.     there are scenarios where a hand tuned spindle layout can be more efficient, but there's also the possibility of getting write bound on any one of those 3 seperate raid1's, and having other disks sitting idle.

I'm trying to get an understanding of all options. 

So out of 6 disks then having 4 in Raid 1+0 configuration and other two in mirror for WAL. That's another option then for me to test. 

 

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: John R Pierce
Date:
Subject: Re: table spaces
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Age of the WAL?