Re: Possible Redundancy/Performance Solution - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: Possible Redundancy/Performance Solution
Date
Msg-id dcc563d10805061857i5908c269q4d2c5cecd78a8788@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Possible Redundancy/Performance Solution  (Dennis Muhlestein <djmuhlestein@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Dennis Muhlestein
<djmuhlestein@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Those are good points.  So you'd go ahead and add the pgpool in front (or
> another redundancy approach, but then use raid1,5 or perhaps 10 on each
> server?

That's what I'd do.  specificall RAID10 for small to medium drive sets
used for transactional stuff, and RAID6 for very large reporting
databases that are mostly read.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Vlad Arkhipov
Date:
Subject: Re: Seqscan problem
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Possible Redundancy/Performance Solution