Greg Smith writes:
>> During peak operation there will be about 5 to 20 updates per second
>> with a handfull of reads.
>
> There really is no reason you need to be concerned about WAL from a
> performance perspective if this is your expected workload.
I was able to get the second controller with battery backup.
This machine is the backup so if the primary fails it would get higher
volumes.
It is also easier to throw more work at a good machine than to find myself
with an underperformer.
> both the database and the WAL on there, and don't even bother trying to
> separate out the WAL.
Thanks for the feedback.
I wish there was a place with hardware guide where people could get feedback
like the one you gave me. In particular actual numbers like x to y number of
transactions per second you don't need WAL no separate disk.. etc..
