Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From philip johnson
Subject Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
Date
Msg-id NDBBJLHHAKJFNNCGFBHLIEFPEFAA.philip.johnson@atempo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org wrote:
> Objet : Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no
> raid on
>
>
> Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com> writes:
>> If 4 drives are an option, I suggest 2 x RAID1, one for data, and
>> one for WAL and temporary DB space (pg_temp).
>
> Ideally there should be *nothing* on the WAL drive except WAL; you
> don't ever want that disk head seeking away from the WAL.  Put the
> temp files on the data disk.
>
>             regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the
> postmaster

which temp files ?

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on
Next
From: Andrew Sullivan
Date:
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on