On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Jan Nielsen <jan.sture.nielsen@gmail.com> wrote: > We are considering the following drive allocations: > > * 4 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 10 on SAN for PG data > * 4 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 10 on SAN for PG indexes > * 2 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 1 on SAN for PG xlog > * 1 x 15k SAS drive, XFS, on local storage for OS
Is it established practice in the Postgres world to separate indexes from tables? I would assume that the reasoning of Richard Foote - albeit for Oracle databases - is also true for Postgres:
Conversely if you lump both on a single volume you have more flexibility with regard to usage - unless of course you can dynamically resize volumes.
Agreed.
To me it also seems like a good idea to mirror local disk with OS and database software because if that fails you'll get downtime as well. As of now you have a single point of failure there.
Agreed as well.
These are good improvements - thanks for the review and references, Robert.